Posted on 03/04/2010 7:59:16 AM PST by Responsibility2nd
I thought judgments weren't bankrupt-able.
Exactly!
People that leave that thing going 24/7, with hundreds of files being shared, deserve to be caught.
>>>How about charging her the $0.99 per song if she had paid.What is the deal with $250 per?<<<
I think there should be some happy medium in between. If all the illegal downloaders had to pay is the regular price, they would just try to get away with it knowing that if they get caught they would be no worse off than if they had simply bought the recordings.
Perhaps something like $10 or $25 per song would be reasonable.
She wasn’t held liable for downloading, she was held liable for sharing. She downloaded them into a file sharing directory for other people to download.
it’s federal since it happened on ALgore’s internet.
There is no choice. The statutory minimum is $750 per violation. There were 37 violations. Thus, the damage award is $27,750.
You're kidding, right? Go into the Gap and steal a sweater. If you get caught, offer to then pay the $29.99 on the price tag. See how far that gets you.
Well, you can’t just award the real price because then there would be no deterrent to downloading them. Downloaders would face no downside; if caught they’d just be liable for the same cost they’re avoiding anyway. But 200X seems usurious. In ancient Israel, God’s law required a thief to pay back multiple times the value of what he stole, and the multiple varied depending on what was stolen, but it was in the range of 5X, not 200X.
At that price, there is little deterrence, because the risk of being caught is low. Fines are "big" so that even with the low risk of getting caught and being sued, people think "it's not worth it."
Moreover, high fines encourage copyright holders to bring suits to enforce their rights; if the fines were lower, it would not be cost effective to bring suits, and copyright holders would be effectively denied the ability to enforce their rights. I really don't understand why people are advocating that the system favor the infringer.
Of course there's a choice. If you believe the statutory penalty is disproportionate for the crime, you might reason "Well, I know she did the crime, but the penalty is disproportionate and I have no way to modify it but to find in her favor. Maybe next time the labels pay to have a law passed they'll put in a more reasonable penalty. Then I might uphold it."
Although, I understand what you are saying, I don’t think that is a fair punishment either. Like others said if you stole a $30 piece of clothing, if you get caught, should you be allowed to just pay for it and a 1 cent punitive damage and be off the hook?
One word: Lawyers. They have to get paid.
Excuse me, but are you saying that a person should pay the "retail rate" for appropriating someone else's intellectual property and then only if they are caught doing so?
You do realize, sir, that the imposition of penalties in the form of high costs are imposed to discourage such behavior.
What? No execution?
....And move your music to another (non-shared) folder.
Wasn’t there a Russian site a few years back called AllOfMp3 that was selling songs and not paying the royalties? Seems like ASCAP and RIAA jumped into that and got an uncooperative Russian government to cooperate, cuz all of a sudden,one day, the site was off the net.
I think anyone who owned a vinyl,tape, or CD recording should already have a license for an MP3 version.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.