Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 18 of 18

Thread: Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case

  1. #11
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    /dev/belgium
    Posts
    1,946

    Default Re: Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case

    Quote Originally Posted by GofBorg View Post
    > Yea.... they'll never see/get that money from her...

    And imagine the public black eye when she loses her double wide and is
    living under a bridge with her kids. Nice one, real smooth.
    Not sure how to take this comment from you... All I said is that no matter what they do, even if they go sell all her possessions, they won't get that amount of money from her. Heck, most of the regular people don't even make that much during their whole lifetime, yet the RIAA thinks that she can somehow come up magically with this amount of money. Of course, the ruling and amount to charge was ridiculous for just a bunch of songs - no 24 songs are worth that much no matter from whom they come from. The amount of charge is really ridiculous since there's no way that the RIAA lost that much money just because Jammie snapped 24 songs from the Net, which is still debatable whether she did it or not...

    Anyways, she also did a few mistakes that may have led the jury to conclude that she was lying/spinning some things. Like bringing new "facts", which were also a bit suspicious, on the table at the very last moment which she never brought up during the whole trial...

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    UK
    Posts
    5,500

    Default Re: Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case

    Quote Originally Posted by hendersj View Post
    On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 17:05:47 +0000, kgroneman wrote:

    > Hey cjcox:
    >
    >>Fine was excessive though.

    >
    > Given she was given the opportunity to settle for much less and chose to
    > fight it.....that's what happens.


    Well, yeah, she took her chances and lost, but as someone elsewhere
    pointed out, people who cause damage to the environment don't get fined
    like this....this fine is punitive and excessive. I expect that to be
    the subject of the next trip back to court for them all.

    Jim
    I agree with hendersj comments here. However, I think that a high fine was inevitable to deter piracy. The court must have known a fine that excessively high couldn't be paid. It could also embarrass greedy companies rushing to court against such individuals -- not good PR as it paints them as predators or ogres.

  3. #13
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    17,077

    Default Re: Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case

    On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:16:01 +0000, consused wrote:

    > . It could also embarrass greedy
    > companies rushing to court against such individuals -- not good PR as it
    > paints them as predators or ogres.


    Interesting POV - I hadn't thought of that, but yeah, many people already
    don't like RIAA (I've not added much music to my collection since they
    started this campaign against downloaders - I don't download music myself
    - got enough to listen to and there hasn't been a whole lot new that I've
    been that impressed with in years. But I've got a radio and access to
    slacker.com and Pandora, which both give me a chance to preview anything
    I might want to buy.

    I used to be a regular CD buyer, usually 2-3 a week. But when they
    decided to go after downloaders rather than those who duplicate and sell
    the product on the streets in various parts of the world, I stopped
    buying. If they want to go after people who are actually taking money
    from them, don't go after the downloaders (since they probably never
    would have bought the music in the first place) - go after the street
    vendors who are actually making money.

    Of course that's harder to do. It's easier to bankrupt someone who
    wouldn't have bought in the first place. And like you said above, an
    excessive fine like this does little to encourage someone like me to
    start buying their product again.

    Jim

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Frisco, TX
    Posts
    1,233

    Default Re: Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case

    On Sat, 2009-06-20 at 18:54 +0000, Jim Henderson wrote:
    > On Sat, 20 Jun 2009 09:16:01 +0000, consused wrote:
    >
    > > . It could also embarrass greedy
    > > companies rushing to court against such individuals -- not good PR as it
    > > paints them as predators or ogres.

    >
    > Interesting POV - I hadn't thought of that, but yeah, many people already
    > don't like RIAA (I've not added much music to my collection since they
    > started this campaign against downloaders - I don't download music myself
    > - got enough to listen to and there hasn't been a whole lot new that I've
    > been that impressed with in years. But I've got a radio and access to
    > slacker.com and Pandora, which both give me a chance to preview anything
    > I might want to buy.


    The artists themselves don't like RIAA... it's worse than Microsoft's
    reputation! RIAA is getting desperate. They didn't want to work with
    their consumers or their producers, and now they can only sue the lowly
    and hope.... sigh... I tink RIAA has about 3 years left.




  5. #15
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    17,077

    Default Re: Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case

    On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 15:02:22 +0000, cjcox wrote:

    > The artists themselves don't like RIAA...


    Some do, but it does seem that more and more don't. The thing I've been
    trying to figure out is what value RIAA/MPAA bring to the table for
    content owners.

    Jim

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Finland, European Union
    Posts
    1,879

    Default Re: Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case

    What's curious is that if she would've been tried here, she would've (at most) received a few hundred euro slap plus the expenses of the trial which would most likely result in few thousand euros in total.

    Even more likely solution would have been to solve the case outside of courts as it would've been tossed out if it actually got that far.

  7. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2008
    Location
    Delta Quadrant
    Posts
    1,442

    Default Re: Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case

    I just meant that the RIAA will look really bad for suing the woman into
    oblivion.




  8. #18
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Seattle, WA
    Posts
    17,077

    Default Re: Jury rules against Minn. woman in download case

    On Mon, 22 Jun 2009 16:46:01 +0000, Chrysantine wrote:

    > What's curious is that if she would've been tried here, she would've (at
    > most) received a few hundred euro slap plus the expenses of the trial
    > which would most likely result in few thousand euros in total.
    >
    > Most likely it would've been tossed out of the court before it even got
    > that far.


    Yeah, I have to say, I do like the Finnish approach to stuff like this
    (come to that, overall the European approach appeals to me a lot). It
    seems that here in the US, a fair bit of the court is for sale....

    (But if I go any further in expressing my opinion, that'll get into
    politics)

    Jim

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •