Skip to comments.Minnesota Woman Fined $1.92M in File-Sharing Retrial
Posted on 06/19/2009 8:36:22 AM PDT by Larry381
MINNEAPOLIS A replay of the nation's only file-sharing case to go to trial has ended with the same result a Minnesota woman was found to have violated music copyrights and must pay huge damages to the recording industry
(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com ...
$80,000 per song?
This is utterly ridiculous. File sharing isn’t the same as attempting to kill someone.
Must make an example of those evil file sharererers.
We can’t have file sharing folks stealing money from hard working music execs...... Unless of course they are on the government dole.
P2P networks for welfare moms.
Ask a lawyer.
My unlegal opinion is that listening to a utube video wouldn’t be breaking the law. Copying it and sending it to other people, or making it available to other people, might be breaking the law.
While they keep talking about this woman’s “downloading”, the real issue was that she put the songs on a file-sharing system, so they are charging her with all the money lost from all the people who got the songs from her instead of buying them.
Actually, it’s stealing money from the composer who wrote the music and from whomever did the recording. I don’t know why people think that making music come from magic fairy dust, and that musicians don’t dserve to get paid for their work.
I would tend to agree that composers are being ripped off. But.....
Who is filing the lawsuits? RIAA. They have made it a point to become the bad guy here.
I suppose my stance is this. If the RIAAA is filled with talented business men (which I suppose it is) they why are they not combating this file sharing with another product? If they are the super geniuses they suppose they are then they should be able to use technology to their advantage. Instead they throw a fit and look for legal judgments. In the meantime their product was stolen many millions of times over while they prosecuted a turnip.
RIAA = ignorant stupid prunes.
Get a life and show some initiative.
I agree that depriving composers and performers of their due is stealing. But just how many times am I expected to buy the same music? If I’ve got the album down in my basement, which i bought, back in the day, shouldnt i be free to download a digital version to my Ipod without paying?
I don’t believe the law is broken unless you actually download or upload (without permission) something that is copyrighted. If what you are watching violates a copyright I believe the offender would be YouTube. I’m ashamed to say that even after all the years I spent in the record industry I just as perplexed about just what constitutes copyright infringement as you are.
No, just as if you bought a book that’s in your basement and a new edition comes out, you’re not entitled to steal the new copy from the bookstore just because you already bought one.