24 Songs = $1.9 Million

[Telefrog]

This should probably go either in The Lounge or the Tech area, but I think this could get pretty heated, so I'm putting it here.

If you pirate 24 songs, you can be fined $1.9 million! (http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html) :eek:

Jammie Thomas-Rasset's case was the first such copyright infringement case to go to trial in the United States, her attorney said.

Attorney Joe Sibley said that his client was shocked at the fine, noting that the price tag on the songs she downloaded was 99 cents.

She plans to appeal, he said.

Cara Duckworth, a spokeswoman for the Recording Industry Association of America, said the association was "pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable."

"We appreciate the jury's service and that they take this as seriously as we do," she said.


Ars has been following the case (http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jammie-thomas-retrial-verdict.ars) pretty closely. They note that the $80,000.00 fine per song was more punitive in nature because the defendant was being a pure idiot and blatantly lied throughout the trial. In fact, she was apparently offered the chance to settle eary on for $1500, but chose to fight the RIAA instead.

So, here's the question: If the RIAA came knocking on your door, would you settle or fight?

[Ink Asylum]

Although I don't download music illegally, if I did and the RIAA knocked on my door and said you can cough up $1500 or we can sue you for $2 million I'd probably settle.

[roboninja]

Although I don't download music illegally, if I did and the RIAA knocked on my door and said you can cough up $1500 or we can sue you for $2 million I'd probably settle.

Sounds like extortion to me. The songs are worth what they are worth. If they offered to settle for $50 for the 24 songs, I might agree. $1500? Fuck'em.

[Wraith]

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v298/wraithakamrak/AAUGH_2.jpg

If she had walked out of Best buy with two CDs in her purse, would there have even been a trial?

$1,900,000 for this just seems even more asinine than the original $222,000.

[Ink Asylum]

People are punished for theft far beyond the cost of the items stolen. If I'm illegally downloading music I know I'm doing something wrong, but generally feel like the odds of getting caught are so low that I'm willing to take the chance. If I am caught, well, time to face the music.

I don't agree with the huge settlements, but given the option to avoid a long and financially draining court case for $1500 I'll take it. Until we have more reasonable laws I don't feel like being a financial martyr.

[Generation ABXY]

...Wait, didn't you just say you don't download music illegally?

Or, maybe I'm just misunderstanding and that was supposed to be some sort of hypothetical.

EDIT: Either way, I bet she has to feel like a bit of a dumbass right now. I mean, $1500 still seems a bit ludicrous, but – like any other punishment - it is more of a deterrent, and it is a hell of a lot easier on the checkbook than $1.9 million.

[Ink Asylum]

It's a hypothetical.

It's like speeding. I don't own a car anymore, but when I did I sped, like most people. If I were ever pulled over I'd pay the ticket and take my lumps, because I knew I was breaking the law. I'm not going to bitch and fight over it.

[ShivaX]

Sounds like extortion to me. The songs are worth what they are worth. If they offered to settle for $50 for the 24 songs, I might agree. $1500? Fuck'em.

Depends if shes sharing them with others. In that case shes effectively stealing another copy everytime someone downloads it from her. Of course I'm betting she didn't upload the songs 1 million times so the fine is still beyond the pale.

[Ink Asylum]

The fines are exhorbitantly high and I agree the max should be drastically lowered. Still, the questions was, given how the law currently stands and the results of real cases like this, would you settle or would you fight it?

[Telefrog]

Depends if shes sharing them with others. In that case shes effectively stealing another copy everytime someone downloads it from her. Of course I'm betting she didn't upload the songs 1 million times so the fine is still beyond the pale.

This is an important distinction. She was tried and found guilty of filesharing, not just downloading. The dollar amounts were based on the range ($750-$150K per song) given to the jury to determine the "losses" the RIAA said they suffered.

Sounds like extortion to me. The songs are worth what they are worth. If they offered to settle for $50 for the 24 songs, I might agree. $1500? Fuck'em.

Those are some pretty bold words. Do you have $1.9 million sitting around? Even more reasonably, do you believe you have enough time and money to withstand a trial?

[Generation ABXY]

Ah, I forgot all about the question. So, yes, if I was quilty, yeah, I'd probably settle.

[Goronmon]

It kind of scares me that there are people on juries crazy enough to through around those kinds of numbers for music sharing.

[Narradisall]

Perhaps they should legislate a maximum amount you can be liable for per song? I mean $1.9 million for 24 songs? There is little chance she'g going to ever be able to pay that, so who benefits?

If they tried it on me, I'd dispute. If I lost, I'd end up bankrupt as I don't have that type of scratch lying around. They wouldn't get a dime either way, and I'd end up with a really shitty credit rating for ages.

I understand why they are doing these high profile cases to 'break the back' of the illegal downloaders by putting them off doing it, but most people think they can get away with it so they will. There's too many of them to stop every one individually in long drawn out cases, not taking into account international laws and cases.

I think the worse we're getting here on a blanket scale may be them trying to get the isp's to slow down your service. Oh noes, I don't get the speed of service I fucking pay for anyway.

[Generation ABXY]

Perhaps they should legislate a maximum amount you can be liable for per song?

I could be mistaken (others follow this more closely than I do), but they do have a maximum. I think it is like $150,000; the RIAA apparently chose not to go for the full amount.

Again, I could be wrong and I'm sure someone can correct me if I am.

[Wraith]

I could be mistaken (others follow this more closely than I do), but they do have a maximum. I think it is like $150,000; the RIAA apparently chose not to go for the full amount.

Again, I could be wrong and I'm sure someone can correct me if I am.Well that's a relief. If she was fined $3.6M instead of $1.9M, then she'd really be in trouble!

[roboninja]

Those are some pretty bold words. Do you have $1.9 million sitting around? Even more reasonably, do you believe you have enough time and money to withstand a trial?

No to both questions. The fact that she was shown to be uploading the songs might change my stance here a little, but then again, if you use torrents, you are uploading as you download.

I just cannot see myself being able to come to terms with paying the $1500. Maybe it is just foolishness on my part, but I never stated that I was entirely reasonable.

[roboninja]

It's a hypothetical.

It's like speeding. I don't own a car anymore, but when I did I sped, like most people. If I were ever pulled over I'd pay the ticket and take my lumps, because I knew I was breaking the law. I'm not going to bitch and fight over it.

Of course the difference here is that, if you do fight a $100 speeding ticket, the fine does not magically rise to $100,000.

[Telefrog]

Perhaps they should legislate a maximum amount you can be liable for per song? I mean $1.9 million for 24 songs? There is little chance she'g going to ever be able to pay that, so who benefits?

If they tried it on me, I'd dispute. If I lost, I'd end up bankrupt as I don't have that type of scratch lying around. They wouldn't get a dime either way, and I'd end up with a really shitty credit rating for ages.

I understand why they are doing these high profile cases to 'break the back' of the illegal downloaders by putting them off doing it, but most people think they can get away with it so they will. There's too many of them to stop every one individually in long drawn out cases, not taking into account international laws and cases.

That's exactly the point of course. The RIAA can now hold her up as an example. "Look here, pirates! If we utterly crushed this single mom for 2 CDs worth of songs, guess what would happen to you?" It's the same thing that happens when the government prosecutes tax evaders. She's being made an example of. The more high-profile cases the RIAA can pursue and win, the better, in their thinking.

I could be mistaken (others follow this more closely than I do), but they do have a maximum. I think it is like $150,000; the RIAA apparently chose not to go for the full amount.

The RIAA didn't even specify an amount. The jury did. They were given a range between $750 and $150K per song, and they chose $80K. Ignoring the settlement that the RIAA offered, the minimum judgment could've been $18K. (I feel this is still too high, but that's not the point.) The jury of her peers flat out punished her for being a liar and dragging the case out.

A vigorous defense from Kiwi Camara and Joe Sibley was not enough to sway the jury, which had only to find that a preponderance of the evidence pointed to Thomas-Rasset. The evidence clearly pointed to her machine, even correctly identifying the MAC address of both her cable modem and her computer's Ethernet port. When combined with the facts about her hard drive replacement (and her failure to disclose those facts to the investigators), her "tereastarr" username, and the new theories that she offered yesterday for the first time in more than three years, jurors clearly remained unconvinced by her protestations of innocence.

Camara suspects that the jury thought Thomas-Rasset was a liar and were "angry about it," thus leading to the $80,000 per-song damages.

The case is a reminder that in civil trials, simply raising some doubt about liability is not enough; lawyers need to raise lots of doubt to win the case, and Camara and Sibley were unable to do so here.

The jury found Thomas-Rasset's conduct to be willful, which means that statutory damages under the Copyright Act can range from $750 per infringement up to $150,000. In his closing statement, defense lawyer Joe Sibley made clear that even the minimum award would run $18,000 (24 songs x $750 = $18,000), an amount that he said was unfair and crippling to Thomas-Rasset. The jury decided that the per-song penalty would be $80,000, for a total damage award of $1.92 million, over $1.7 million more than the award in her first trial.

[Shrinn]

I could be mistaken (others follow this more closely than I do), but they do have a maximum. I think it is like $150,000; the RIAA apparently chose not to go for the full amount.

Again, I could be wrong and I'm sure someone can correct me if I am.

You are correct as far as the laws I've seen. $150,000 per infringement is the max.

[Inspector Fowler]

I am 100% against music piracy, but even I think this is an absolutely astounding verdict. I've gone rounds with people here about how I think file sharing is not sharing but stealing, and holy shit, even I can't understand how a reasonable jury member could come to this conclusion.

[Vector]

Sounds like extortion to me. The songs are worth what they are worth. If they offered to settle for $50 for the 24 songs, I might agree. $1500? Fuck'em.

Thats like saying if you steal a car you should only have to pay for it. The idea is to punish and deter the person from doing it again. Otherwise it's a free loaner until you get caught and then you go "oops...heres a dollar for the song"

[Ink Asylum]

Yeah, life would be interesting if the penalty for theft was just to pay for what you stole. You might as well steal everything and just pay for the stuff you get caught stealing.

[Vector]

If they tried it on me, I'd dispute. If I lost, I'd end up bankrupt as I don't have that type of scratch lying around. They wouldn't get a dime either way, and I'd end up with a really shitty credit rating for ages..

Yes they would....any future earnings of yours can be seized and docked. They can garish your wages, etc. I have a coworker who thought he could avoid paying a fine by doing what you just suggested. The court ordered him to pay like 30K and he said he was broke. They take money out of his paycheck every month...

[Serapth]

The fact that anyone continues to support the RIAA with such draconian tactics just boggles my mind.

The fact your legal system is so horribly broken, sadly doesn't shock me.

[Narradisall]

Yes they would....any future earnings of yours can be seized and docked. They can garish your wages, etc. I have a coworker who thought he could avoid paying a fine by doing what you just suggested. The court ordered him to pay like 30K and he said he was broke. They take money out of his paycheck every month...

Nope, I wouldn't pay a penny. Not internet bullshittery or anything, I just know the system well enough and I'm a stubborn enough bastard that I could get away without paying anything. Granted I'd probably have to wreck my life for a few years to do it though! :D

As for the limit, $150,000? Oh well thank fuck for that!

The limit should be $1,000 per song. Still a HUGE fucking mark up that none of you could say "oh well you might as well just risk stealing it" as the above posts say and still within the reasonable limits of $24,000 for the damaged she'd done, which is enough to put people off, and reasonable enough for her to pay.

There should also be a maximum cap, so say if you did 200 songs your'd only pay a capped, oh I dunno, $50,000.

See, what the music guys don't get, and what escapes most people, is this shit dont work. If someone says "DO THIS AND WE'LL MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF YOU BY PAYING BILLIONS!" they make it sound SO unrealistic that most people will write it off completely. If you actually thought it would be a realisitc amount that is still a ton of money you had to pay back, then it might make people think....

Quoting millions makes it seem unrealistic to most and complete unreasonable. No one here could easily pay back millions, heck most probably will make that much only in the course of their entire lives. These high profile cases don't end with them paying back these sums. At worst case they end up ruining the persons finances for life, and making them live a life of misery.

Yea, that'll garner support for the music execs while they fly their jets about and the evil people downloading 24 songs top themselves after losing everything.

It's not going to work.

[Generation ABXY]

Yeah, life would be interesting if the penalty for theft was just to pay for what you stole. You might as well steal everything and just pay for the stuff you get caught stealing.

Indeed. Oddly, this also makes me think life would be a lot more peaceful if the penalty for everything was death. Can I get anyone to second the motion?

[Doogie2K]

See, what the music guys don't get, and what escapes most people, is this shit dont work. If someone says "DO THIS AND WE'LL MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF YOU BY PAYING BILLIONS!" they make it sound SO unrealistic that most people will write it off completely. If you actually thought it would be a realisitc amount that is still a ton of money you had to pay back, then it might make people think....

Quoting millions makes it seem unrealistic to most and complete unreasonable. No one here could easily pay back millions, heck most probably will make that much only in the course of their entire lives. These high profile cases don't end with them paying back these sums. At worst case they end up ruining the persons finances for life, and making them live a life of misery.

Yea, that'll garner support for the music execs while they fly their jets about and the evil people downloading 24 songs top themselves after losing everything.

It's not going to work.

http://www.solarnavigator.net/films_movies_actors/film_images/Austin_Powers_Mike_Myers_as_Dr_Evil.jpg

Just sayin'.

[Narradisall]

lol Doogie.

They don't have a death ray..... yet...

[Telefrog]

Nope, I wouldn't pay a penny. Not internet bullshittery or anything, I just know the system well enough and I'm a stubborn enough bastard that I could get away without paying anything. Granted I'd probably have to wreck my life for a few years to do it though! :D

As for the limit, $150,000? Oh well thank fuck for that!

The limit should be $1,000 per song. Still a HUGE fucking mark up that none of you could say "oh well you might as well just risk stealing it" as the above posts say and still within the reasonable limits of $24,000 for the damaged she'd done, which is enough to put people off, and reasonable enough for her to pay.

There should also be a maximum cap, so say if you did 200 songs your'd only pay a capped, oh I dunno, $50,000.

See, what the music guys don't get, and what escapes most people, is this shit dont work. If someone says "DO THIS AND WE'LL MAKE AN EXAMPLE OF YOU BY PAYING BILLIONS!" they make it sound SO unrealistic that most people will write it off completely. If you actually thought it would be a realisitc amount that is still a ton of money you had to pay back, then it might make people think....

Quoting millions makes it seem unrealistic to most and complete unreasonable. No one here could easily pay back millions, heck most probably will make that much only in the course of their entire lives. These high profile cases don't end with them paying back these sums. At worst case they end up ruining the persons finances for life, and making them live a life of misery.

Yea, that'll garner support for the music execs while they fly their jets about and the evil people downloading 24 songs top themselves after losing everything.

It's not going to work.

You do understand that the goal in these cases is not to actually collect the outrageous sum of money, correct? After the appeal, which she will lose, they will garnish her wages and ruin her life, but the actual money they recieve from her isn't the point.

The point of the exercise is to have spotlight cases that make people think really hard before breaking whatever law they're going to break. It's a deterrent.

As I said earlier, it's just like sending people to jail or ruining their lives for tax evasion. The government only cares a tiny bit about the actual money they get back. The real goal is to thoroughly crush someone in public to convince people to not do the same thing. Overall, it does work. The majority of folks pay taxes, not out of patriotism, but out of fear. The last time I checked, the IRS isn't well loved or respected by the populace, but they don't seem to care.

[Narradisall]

You do understand that the goal in these cases is not to actually collect the outrageous sum of money, correct? After the appeal, which she will lose, they will garnish her wages and ruin her life, but the actual money they recieve from her isn't the point.

The point of the exercise is to have spotlight cases that make people think really hard before breaking whatever law they're going to break. It's a deterrent.

As I said earlier, it's just like sending people to jail or ruining their lives for tax evasion. The government only cares a tiny bit about the actual money they get back. The real goal is to thoroughly crush someone in public to convince people to not do the same thing. Overall, it does work. The majority of folks pay taxes, not out of patriotism, but out of fear. The last time I checked, the IRS isn't well loved or respected by the populace, but they don't seem to care.

Oh yes, I understand completely.

... and its why it drives me more and more against them.

While it will work in a lot of cases, such hard line tactics do have a long history of backfiring on people.

The fact that they play the victim while they are perfectly happy to ruin someones entire life just to feed the bottom line sickens me.

In most caes, in the end it works out worse for them, because the consumers will really start to turn on them.

[Shadowstorm]

Although I don't download music illegally, if I did and the RIAA knocked on my door and said you can cough up $1500 or we can sue you for $2 million I'd probably settle.

See, this is exactly what most of the people who are faced with this ultimatum do. Settle.

Step 1: Target tons of people.
Step 2: Blanket bomb said people with psuedo threats of being sued.
Step 3: Fight or settle.
Step 4: ????
Step 5: Profit!

I'd love to see some statistics on how much money exactly actually go to the artists that the RIAA is supposedly representing. I bet you it's zero!

[H.Bogard]

>glad to be in a country with non-existent piracy laws<

[Whunpo]

See, this is exactly what most of the people who are faced with this ultimatum do. Settle.

Step 1: Target tons of people.
Step 2: Blanket bomb said people with psuedo threats of being sued.
Step 3: Fight or settle.
Step 4: ????
Step 5: Profit!

I'd love to see some statistics on how much money exactly actually go to the artists that the RIAA is supposedly representing. I bet you it's zero!

I'm researching the tactics the RIAA uses to combat piracy for my Senior Paper, and you're pretty much spot on right there.

[Serapth]

In no way do I defend the RIAA or the amount here, but if you haven't learned yet that downloading illegal torrents is stupid you deserve some punishment. Sadly even after explaining why you should I have friends that continue to do it... Ugh.


Besides, if you really insist on stealing music, there are ways you don't leave a trace, learn them. I am anti theft and hate theives with a passion, but in the case of the RIAA ( or Apple/Adobe) other hatred is larger.

[Shadowstorm]

Illegally downloading music is inherently wrong, but I do not see anything wrong with people using it as a try-before-you-buy system, which is precisely what I use it for. I download tons of music but I also by 2-3 albums a week as well.

$80,000 per song is fucking RIDICULOUS. What the fuck is wrong with that? How the hell can they possibly expect her to pay nearly two million dollars? They certainly aren't shoving this in the media's face, that's for sure. They know it's ridiculous, we know it's ridiculous. They're not exactly touting it as a victory like previous "won" or settled cases, especially with the statement from the prosecutor saying they're still willing to settle (lack of details on that one).

Die recorded music industry, die.

[rifter]

Here is the problem, as I see it.

Kazaa is what it said she used. You download a song. It is illegal, but not too bad. If you do it through Kazaa, if I remember right, it then shares the song. At that point if you "close" the app. It goes down to the system tray. If you don't understand computers very well, you may miss it. And, if it goes on long enough, downloading a few songs, can ultimately really screw you over, even though you only meant to download them yourself.

Another example. My last girlfriend bought Limewire. I told her she couldn't legally download music. She told me that she bought the program, so she could legally download music. There are a lot of people who have that level of understanding. She would not believe me, that it was piracy.

If anything like that happened to this lady... she was raped with sand and splinter lube... if she willingly did it, she only got raped with sand-lube.

[RandoM51]

I don't really see what the problem is.

She broke the law.
She got caught.
She was found guilty not once, but twice.

The damages are a very large figure, but a) welcome to the American system of courts and b) guess what happens when you piss off a jury by lying to them repeatedly?

She won't be paying it and the RIAA won't be expecting her to. They got what they wanted, a concrete win in a jury trial. Now everybody knows that their peers don't have a problem convicting them of copyright infringement and levying very high damages. RIAA has to be happy about this outcome.

[Narradisall]

I don't really see what the problem is.

The problem as I see it is, it's opened a nice window for them to exploit people.

These people are illegally downloading music, yes. There's no defending it really.

But now they can blankett spam millions of people for $1500 a pop, even if they downloaded a song, or 2000 songs, or even if they didn't protect their PC well enough and it was being used as a front for downloading music illegally. Tough, cough up your money or we'll wreck your lives.

It's a slippery slope.

[Krispy]

http://img40.imageshack.us/img40/9172/1245456677307.jpg

[Shrinn]

That's just an advance. There's no way a wrongful death settlement is only $24,000.

Example (http://www.walkuplawoffice.com/CM/HowWeHaveHelped/HowWeAviationAccidents.asp)

[Lance Uppercut]

See, this is why you use torrents instead of Limewire/Kazaa. :3

[H.Bogard]

People still use Kazaa?

[Narradisall]

That's just an advance. There's no way a wrongful death settlement is only $24,000.

Example (http://www.walkuplawoffice.com/CM/HowWeHaveHelped/HowWeAviationAccidents.asp)

Yeah, except someone in the UK walked away with paying less than the bicycle he killed a pedestrian on last year. Something like £2000.

No big surprise though, it's always been skewed that peoples lives are worse less than businesses bottom line.

[Ox]

Huh, a lot of unusual people arguing for tort reform here.

[Lithium Flower]

Quite frankly I don't see why downloading a song illegally should be so much worse than overspeeding or driving negligently. So you're infringing copyright in one instance, and possibly endangering life and property in the other. If one earns you a couple of hundred bucks or so in fine, the former shouldn't be so disproportionately worse.

As for deterrent, sure, if you're caught downloading illegal files (not "profiting" from it), you should be fined maybe 10 or 20 times the value of the song, not more. If that's enough deterrent to prevent overspeeding (which may cause fatal accidents), it's quite sufficient for a couple of $ worth of lost revenue for RIAA and the like.

[Ox]

Quite frankly I don't see why downloading a song illegally should be so much worse than overspeeding or driving negligently. So you're infringing copyright in one instance, and possibly endangering life and property in the other. If one earns you a couple of hundred bucks or so in fine, the former shouldn't be so disproportionately worse.
But downloading a song illegally is punished much less severely than driving dangerously. You can be imprisoned for those things on top of whatever harm you actually cause anyone. Non-commercial copyright infringement carries no possibility of imprisonment. The sanction is entirely monetary, which (regardless of the amount) is considered less than any possibility of imprisonment.

I really think your understanding of the two issues is ass-backwards.

As for deterrent, sure, if you're caught downloading illegal files (not "profiting" from it), you should be fined maybe 10 or 20 times the value of the song, not more. If that's enough deterrent to prevent overspeeding (which may cause fatal accidents), it's quite sufficient for a couple of $ worth of lost revenue for RIAA and the like.
The effectiveness of a deterrent is an empirical question, is it not? The deterrent is effective if people stop engaging in the activity; it's ineffective if they continue the activity. You can't answer that question a priori by just looking at the amount of the penalty, you have to look at the actual experience.

What does experience tell us? Raise your hand if this judgment makes you significantly less likely to download music illegally. Anybody? I guess that demonstrates that this penalty is too low to be effective.

Moreover, you seem to claim that the fine for speeding on a motorway is "10 to 20 times the value" of the harm. Have you bothered to calculate the harm from speeding (which very rarely causes accidents)? Have you considered the frequency of enforcement? Your logic cannot be followed.

[Ancalagon]

Did they do the Doctor Evil gesture when they announced the figure? Seems appropriate to me.

Also: since when has law been about making an example of wrongdoers? I thought it was about punishment, rehabilitation and restitution.

*not sure if restitution is the word I'm looking for, I mean restoring things to rights so that someone who had something stolen from him has it returned to him and any damage repaired or paid for.

EDIT:


The effectiveness of a deterrent is an empirical question, is it not? The deterrent is effective if people stop engaging in the activity; it's ineffective if they continue the activity. You can't answer that question a priori by just looking at the amount of the penalty, you have to look at the actual experience.


I'd like to know the data about the death penalty being used for serious crimes such as murder and rape. Is it really a deterrent? I dont think its unreasonable to suggest that the death penalty is the most serious penalty (well, duh), and yet people still commit murder and rape. They receive life sentences even if they arent executed. Thus, deterrents will never be 100% effective, and using the deterrent factor as the basis for deciding punishment, is, IMHO, inherently flawed.

What does experience tell us? Raise your hand if this judgment makes you significantly less likely to download music illegally. Anybody? I guess that demonstrates that this penalty is too low to be effective.

Not necessarily - it could demonstrate that the penalty is sufficient but the chance of conviction is too low. In fact, I'd argue thats one of the reasons why piracy is so widespread - its difficult to detect exactly who is pirating. There have been academics who have managed to get RIAA warning letters sent to printers. And thats assuming said pirates use the internet - how many have swapped MP3s with friends?

Edit Edit: The other thing this verdict does, although this has nothing to do with piracy, is piss me off. I'm sure many other customers would feel the same.

[Ox]

Also: since when has law been about making an example of wrongdoers? I thought it was about punishment, rehabilitation and restitution.
It depends on the area of law you're talking about, but you seem to be quoting the purposes of criminal law. Which are retribution, deterrence, rehabilitation, and incapacitation. So I'm going to say the answer to your question is "forever."

[Serapth]

What does experience tell us? Raise your hand if this judgment makes you significantly less likely to download music illegally. Anybody? I guess that demonstrates that this penalty is too low to be effective.

Actually, I would be interested in knowing how that hand count would turn out. If I was an American who was stupid enough to use torrents or P2P software to download music illegally without a solid proxy, I would actually look at this lawsuit reward and the multiple successes before it and stop downloading ASAP.

As it stands, I am Canadian, where their are capped limits on rewards... and very grey laws when it comes to file downloading. As I understand it, download or backing up digital media is not illegal, in fact we pay a fee on all physical media, from iPods, to CDs/DVDs etc for this exact purpose, however, sharing in any form is illegal.

In other words, dont fucking P2P. I would think this would be obvious at this point, but so many of you people, even tech savvy people continue to download files over P2P networks and frankly, at this point, you deserve what is coming!

EDIT:

The current Copyright Act allows for a maximum fine of $20,000 for each instance of copyright infringement, whether downloading or uploading, although Canadian file sharers have yet to face the same lawsuits that have been launched by record companies in the United States.

Under the new legislation, the maximum amount of statutory damages a court could enforce would be $500 for all infringements contained in a lawsuit, although a judge could still award other penalties.

[Ox]

Serapth, has it occurred to you that people who commit torts against Americans can often be sued in American courts under American laws, particularly if their acts take place in America? If you were to download music from a computer in Los Angeles (I don't know whether you pirate), you can quite arguably be sued in American court. And your precious Canadianism won't save you.

[Generation ABXY]

Also: since when has law been about making an example of wrongdoers? I thought it was about punishment, rehabilitation and restitution.

As far as I know, imprisonment won't bring back a murderer's victim, undo a rape or anything of that sort. So what would be the purpose of punishment, if not as a deterrent? What do you believe to be the driving force behind some supposed rehabilitation?

[Serapth]

Serapth, has it occurred to you that people who commit torts against Americans can often be sued in American courts under American laws, particularly if their acts take place in America? If you were to download music from a computer in Los Angeles (I don't know whether you pirate), you can quite arguably be sued in American court. And your precious Canadianism won't save you.

How can we be sued for something we have been implicity licensed to allow? The Canada Copyright Levy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_in_Canada) taxes all blank media ( ALL! ) and divies the proceeds up, primarily among RIAA members. Either we are allowed or they owe us over 100$ million in fees back!


The music industry created a loophole in Canadian copyright laws when it asked for a levy on blank audio media. These $0.21 to $0.24 levies on blank media raised millions of dollars for music publishers, but also legalized copying in the digital age, to the consternation of the music industry.[2] Canadian courts have ruled that consumers have the right to copy any recording from the original copy even those they do not personally own. This consumer right has been extended by the courts to include peer-to-peer downloads.[3]

[BlackPete]

How can we be sued for something we have been implicity licensed to allow? The Canada Copyright Levy (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_in_Canada) taxes all blank media ( ALL! ) and divies the proceeds up, primarily among RIAA members. Either we are allowed or they owe us over 100$ million in fees back!

This has always been an interesting legal challenge the internet presents: If something is legal in one country but illegal in another, then how do you expect to be legally charged for it?

Internet jurisdiction is a very weird issue.

[Lithium Flower]

stuff

I don't quite see where I've implied negligent personal injury, damage to property or death is punished with simply a fine, I categorically mentioned over-speeding and stretching it to perhaps reckless driving, and I am not an american but as far as I recall, those are not imprisonable offences at all. When you cause somebody actual damage or injury, that is a completely different matter altogether and definitely not in the same league as file-sharing.

File-sharing is not the same as stealing, and it's not even the same as the original scope or intent of copyright infringement, which was to prevent other people from profiting, without a licence, from some one else's invention or industry.

Copying a bunch of songs off your friend's iPod or a stranger's hard-disc over a network may be comparable to jay-walking or borrowing your classfellow's eraser without their permission, or pushing the speed limit, breaking a red light, driving on the wrong side of the road, - wrong, irresponsible, illegal, immoral, stupid but not quite bad enough to warrant a $1.9m fine and a lifetime of debt.

Deterrence doesn't mean ruining someone's life over something petty, there has to be a measure of proportionality otherwise why not simply have a blanket death penalty?

[Laughing Penguin]

Deterrence doesn't mean ruining someone's life over something petty, there has to be a measure of proportionality otherwise why not simply have a blanket death penalty?

I'm sure the RIAA would fully support the Death Penalty for each illegal download, as long as they can take and sell your assets to cover expenses afterward.

[Narradisall]

What does experience tell us? Raise your hand if this judgment makes you significantly less likely to download music illegally. Anybody? I guess that demonstrates that this penalty is too low to be effective.

See Ox, I have to disagree with you here. It's not that it's too low, it's that it's too rare.

If theres a 1 in a 100 million chance I could be fined £100,000's then I'm going to risk it.

If there was a 1 in a 1000 chance I could be fined £5000 then it would make me think twice.

I think they are going about this in the entirely wrong way as I said earlier. They need to make the threats of them taking action against you a realistic option. The way it stands now, I could pirate stuff openly for years and still not hear a peep from them. These high profile cases just won't work.

[Ox]

I don't quite see where I've implied negligent personal injury, damage to property or death is punished with simply a fine, I categorically mentioned over-speeding and stretching it to perhaps reckless driving, and I am not an american but as far as I recall, those are not imprisonable offences at all.
Reckless driving is. Moreover, negligent personal injury, by definition, inflicts harm unintentionally: you don't mean for anyone to get hurt, you're just careless. File-sharing, by contrast, is an intentional tort: you know exactly what injury you're inflicting when you do it, and you do it precisely because you want to inflict that injury. Intentionally injuring another's interests is usually subject to some sort of deterrence penalty.
File-sharing is not the same as stealing, and it's not even the same as the original scope or intent of copyright infringement, which was to prevent other people from profiting, without a licence, from some one else's invention or industry.
I'd like evidence, please. The existence of a civil remedy for copyright infringement implies that it was created precisely to pursue noncommercial copyright infringement.

Deterrence doesn't mean ruining someone's life over something petty, there has to be a measure of proportionality otherwise why not simply have a blanket death penalty?
Sure, I'm in favor of proportionality. But you can't have the penalty for an intentional tort be exactly the same as the injury. Imagine if the penalty for file-sharing was having to pay whatever the retail price for the file was. So you can either pay the price honestly and up front, or face a small chance of paying exactly the same price. No rational person would ever be honest under those circumstances. The expected cost of file-sharing must, through penalties, be higher than the expected cost of simply paying upfront.

You seem to think that there's some moral principle that means file-sharing should result in a slap on the wrist. Obviously, this jury disagrees with you.

See Ox, I have to disagree with you here. It's not that it's too low, it's that it's too rare.
I also would rather these suits were frequent with lower individual penalties. But as a practical matter, that's very difficult to accomplish. The only realistic option is to increase the penalty.

Of course, the penalty is effectively capped at your ability to pay it. There's not a lot of difference for most people between a $2 million fine and a $2 billion fine; either way, their wages will be garnished for the rest of their lives. This is why crimes are typically punished with prison rather than fines: for most perpetrators, the maximum effective fine is far too low to deter them.

[RandoM51]

But now they can blankett spam millions of people for $1500 a pop, even if they downloaded a song, or 2000 songs, or even if they didn't protect their PC well enough and it was being used as a front for downloading music illegally. Tough, cough up your money or we'll wreck your lives.

It's a slippery slope.

The RIAA was quite willing to settle out of court on this one, and I don't see any ruined lives as part of this particular trial's outcome.

If they have evidence for each of those "millions" of cases, more power to them. They'll be paying for quite a few lawyers to file "millions" of cases.

What other recourse does the RIAA have? It isn't like they can rely on the government to prosecute cases like these. When is the last time your district attorney brought somebody up on charges for illegally downloading music?

[Lithium Flower]

Americans get thrown in jail for breaking a traffic light or wrongfully overtaking? I have a bit of a hard time swallowing that but all right.

Firstly, let us be reminded that I am NOT associating negligent personal injury with file-sharing. I am comparing file-sharing to perfectly intentional civil offences such as the breaking of speed limits, traffic signals or over-taking wrongfully, which as I understand come under the general blanket term of reckless driving. If I am wrong about that, I'm sorry, but I hope we're clear about what I meant.
These traffic offences are NOT the same thing as negligent driving resulting in personal injury, which would be a completely different tort altogether, one which is NOT comparable to copyright infringement at all.

Secondly, I believe a fine should be imposed and obviously a sum which is no different than the market value of the product is not a fine but a sum of $100 or $200 is several times the market value of the infringed item and is far more proportionate than $1.9m.
The essence of my argument is not whether copyright infringement should be a tort or not but where it should stand in the order of severity of offences. At 1.9m it stands right next to truly grave torts, such as negligent personal injury or death. It does not belong in that company.

The imposition of any penalty is informed in part, by the harm that the offence has caused, the gravity of the situation that the law was created to prevent and the general social implications of the offender's lapse of judgement. So if it feels that breaking a traffic light (which is an offence on it's own, regardless of whether someone is injured as a result) has a 'crime value' equivalent to $200-$300 and the crime value of illegally downloading 24 songs is equivalent to $1.9m, there is something amiss.
The "mischief" the traffic rule aims to prevent is the occurrence of auto mobile accidents which can potentially result in injury, damage and even death, where as the "mischief" the copyright infringement law aims to prevent is obtaining an unlawful benefit.

So yes, morally I believe that illegally copying a file you don't own cannot be worse than irresponsibly breaking a traffic light. If 'a slap on the wrist' is acceptable and fair for one, I cannot accept that it wouldn't be for the other.

This situation is comparable to having a minimal system of monitoring minor traffic offences and on the odd chance that a single-mom is caught doing 35 in a 30 mile zone, you slap her with a $1.9m fine to make an 'example' of her. That would be neither equitable nor effective.




While previewing my post, I noticed another I'd like to respond to:

I don't find anything wrong with the fact that this case went to trial. I only find the fine grossly disproportionate. In fact, reflecting on the fact that RIAA wanted to settle for $1500, it seems to me that they themselves estimated their due to be around as much as I believe the fine should have been, which only reinforces the unfairness of the award.

[Serapth]

Of course, the penalty is effectively capped at your ability to pay it. There's not a lot of difference for most people between a $2 million fine and a $2 billion fine; either way, their wages will be garnished for the rest of their lives.

I know bankruptcy laws are their own little domain and I believe they have been heavily changed in recent years, but does anyone know if personal bankruptcy stops wage garnishing?

[Telefrog]

I don't find anything wrong with the fact that this case went to trial. I only find the fine grossly disproportionate. In fact, reflecting on the fact that RIAA wanted to settle for $1500, it seems to me that they themselves estimated their due to be around as much as I believe the fine should have been, which only reinforces the unfairness of the award.

I'd like to point out that the jury was the one that picked the amount awarded. They had a range in which to choose and they went for the median figure because she really pissed them off by repeatedly lying and wasting everyone's time. I think a more sympathetic defendant would've gotten a lighter penalty. I agree the $1.9 million figure is pretty outrageous, but she pretty much did that to herself.

I do think it's perfectly fair and reasonable to discuss the merits of the range presented in these cases as well as the initial settlement the RIAA presents to the accused. Is $750-$150,000 per incident a reasonable amount? Is $1500 for 24 songs reasonable? Does your opinion change if the incident amount is increased to the actual total (1,702) that Jammie Thomas-Rasset apparently shared online according to documents?

[Ox]

Americans get thrown in jail for breaking a traffic light or wrongfully overtaking? I have a bit of a hard time swallowing that but all right.
No, but you said "reckless driving." Neither of those things qualify as "reckless driving." I don't think you want to have an extensive conversation over what constitutes "recklessness", but it's more serious than that. Illegal drag-racing is a good example of reckless driving. I now realize you were using the term in a more colloquial sense, and I apologize for the confusion.

Firstly, let us be reminded that I am NOT associating negligent personal injury with file-sharing. I am comparing file-sharing to perfectly intentional civil offences such as the breaking of speed limits, traffic signals or over-taking wrongfully, which as I understand come under the general blanket term of reckless driving.
None of those things are the same as an intentional tort, though. Each of them are acts you undertake that disregard a danger of injury to someone else. By contrast, an intentional tort like file-sharing is undertaken for the purpose of inflicting that harm. It's a significant difference. EDIT: Also, none of those are torts anyway.

The essence of my argument is not whether copyright infringement should be a tort or not but where it should stand in the order of severity of offences. At 1.9m it stands right next to truly grave torts, such as negligent personal injury or death. It does not belong in that company.
You're conflating a couple of concepts here.

For any tort, the first issue is compensation for the actual injury suffered. A wrongful death suit might recover a few million, because that's the actual compensation for death. I agree that the actual compensation for file-sharing would be very much lower.

By contrast, intentional torts (but not unintentional torts) also have a punitive aspect. That's what this $1.9 million reflects.

You keep comparing this judgment to a suit for accidental killing, but it's more appropriate to compare it to an intentional tort. For example, O.J. Simpson was ordered to pay $33.5 million for the killing of Ronald Goldman. As you can see, the judgment for file-sharing is much smaller than the judgment for an equivalent killing.

I know bankruptcy laws are their own little domain and I believe they have been heavily changed in recent years, but does anyone know if personal bankruptcy stops wage garnishing?
Debts arising from judgments for intentional torts usually cannot be extinguished by bankruptcy.

EDIT: See also this (http://www.cwclaw.com/publications/alertDetail.aspx?id=57).

[Narradisall]

The RIAA was quite willing to settle out of court on this one, and I don't see any ruined lives as part of this particular trial's outcome.

If they have evidence for each of those "millions" of cases, more power to them. They'll be paying for quite a few lawyers to file "millions" of cases.

What other recourse does the RIAA have? It isn't like they can rely on the government to prosecute cases like these. When is the last time your district attorney brought somebody up on charges for illegally downloading music?

As stated before, the RIAA didn't set the fine, but I'd consider having to pay them a %age of my wages for the rest of my life a significant spanner in the works. She's been given a sentence she can never serve in full.

I'd imagine if they are mass spamming $1500 settlements to people like her they must have evidence to back it up? Therefore they do have evidence of these "millions" of file sharing cases. Legals costs would be high, but then if they plan to win these things the majority is covered by the loser is it not?

I gave you another option for them? They have the option of court, but the types of high profile cases won't have the type of effect for the exact reasons I said before.

Personally I think if the RIAA where actually serious about it, another option would be for them to provide some preventative measures. Say creating a way for people to buy digital copies of the damned music, a pay monthly service where you could listen to as much music as you like to test new artists and then easily be able to buy the music straight from that service.

They don't seem interested in providing what the consumer wants, and what drives many to pirate. Sure, theres plenty that just like free stuff, but they continue to provide the same poor service, prevent any viable alternatives from being explored and then sue anyone that doesn't want to tow their line.

Anyway, won't make much difference. This dance has been going on for years now, and it seems everyone is stuck in the same mindset they were from the start, all sides unwilling to budge (both on individual and corporate levels). We'll see how it ends.

[Serapth]

Debts arising from judgments for intentional torts usually cannot be extinguished by bankruptcy.

EDIT: See also this (http://www.cwclaw.com/publications/alertDetail.aspx?id=57).

I am curious from the link you cited, if it applies to personal bankruptcy law. Was he filing for Chapter 7 on behalf of Media Create, or was it a personal bankruptcy? From what I read, especially the summary, it sounds like the case was more a precident about corporate responsibility than anything else.

On one hand, creditors now have an additional type of claim, beyond the traditional intentional tort claim, for pursuing corporate insiders for nondischargeability

Is there a functional difference between corporate and personal chapter 7 fillings? In this case, it soulds like Media Create was sued and Chan was found responsible as the company head?

[Sammael]

You know what would be great piracy deterence? What Amazon is doing with albums electronically for cheap.
I just wish there were a way to pay for my music and know the RIAA was not getting a dime...

[Ox]

I'd imagine if they are mass spamming $1500 settlements to people like her they must have evidence to back it up? Therefore they do have evidence of these "millions" of file sharing cases. Legals costs would be high, but then if they plan to win these things the majority is covered by the loser is it not?
I'm not sure I trust that the RIAA is only threatening to sue people for whom they actually have evidence to support their suit. But in America, the plaintiff usually has to pay all his legal costs without help from the loser. Trying a case before a jury would almost certainly cost the RIAA far more than $1500.

I am curious from the link you cited, if it applies to personal bankruptcy law. Was he filing for Chapter 7 on behalf of Media Create, or was it a personal bankruptcy? From what I read, especially the summary, it sounds like the case was more a precident about corporate responsibility than anything else.
Yes, I think it was a corporate bankruptcy case. I don't believe a court has considered debts for copyright infringement in a personal bankruptcy case since the law changed. However, most of the legal commentary I've seen assumes the result would be the same for personal bankruptcy as well. I believe the legal issues are largely the same.

[alienmastermind]

I only illegally download Metallica tunes.
The rest I pay for. ;)

[CES]

You know what would be great piracy deterence? What Amazon is doing with albums electronically for cheap.
I just wish there were a way to pay for my music and know the RIAA was not getting a dime...

Amazon are having a bastard of a time trying to get licensing rights though. They're fairly good for new releases but there's massive chunks of older music they don't have.

Still, they're the best example of how to get good quality music for cheap.

[Ancalagon]

I only illegally download Metallica tunes.
The rest I pay for. ;)

You make Lars Ulrich cry.