http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading
Ouch!!
–
Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 11 (x86_64) Kernel 2.6.27.23-0.1-default
up 0:11, 2 users, load average: 0.06, 0.13, 0.12
GPU GeForce 8600 GTS Silent - Driver Version: 185.18.14
What’s the big surprise?
I’m happy with my 99c per song at Amazon… 80 grand per song is a bit
out of my budget…
–
Cheers Malcolm °¿° (Linux Counter #276890)
SUSE Linux Enterprise Desktop 11 (x86_64) Kernel 2.6.27.23-0.1-default
up 0:29, 2 users, load average: 0.07, 0.06, 0.13
GPU GeForce 8600 GTS Silent - Driver Version: 185.18.14
On Fri, 2009-06-19 at 15:11 +0000, Malcolm wrote:
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading
>
> Ouch!!
>
Remember folks… when you steal something, you can’t just get away with
it by calling it an “accident”. And if you encourage others to steal,
you will certainly sink your case.
Fine was excessive though. But it may have been warranted depending on
the true motive of the individual (just not sure if that was really
determined or not).
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.
–
Kim (6/19/2009 11:05:12 AM Mountain)
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
> 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.
The only thing I don’t like about the case is the lack of evidence.
If someone steals your car and mows over your neighbor, and all they got was
the license number, can you be prosecuted for manslaughter?
I imagine you could if you did not have some solid alibi, but even if you
didn’t you could be found guilty and sentenced for a crime you did not
commit. Same with the PC story. I have heard stories of people that have
broken into other peoples homes to view pr0n so it wouldn’t be tracked to
their house…strange, but true. I have heard from many mothers, who I do
PC work for, that people have come to visit their house and gotten on their
PC and loaded up limewire and such. The moms often don’t even know what
these things are for, once they find out they are like can you remove it?
Many of these same machines are often infected with malware and viruses.
Do I think this ruling is correct? Well I’m not privy to the arguments in
court or the evidence, but unless they have some sort of hardcore proof of
intent I think it’s wrong wrong wrong.
On Fri, 19 Jun 2009 19:58:13 +0000, GofBorg wrote:
> I imagine you could if you did not have some solid alibi, but even if
> you didn’t you could be found guilty and sentenced for a crime you did
> not commit. Same with the PC story.
Yeah, and unfortunately this sort of thing happens quite frequently - and
often even without going to court because people don’t know that when the
authorities start asking questions, the best thing you can do is say
nothing without first consulting with a lawyer. Even (and especially)
if you’re innocent of any wrongdoing. Law enforcement is trained to get
people to admit to things, and they’re doing one thing: building a case.
So, for example, if you’re being asked (not even as a suspect) about a
homicide and you say “I wouldn’t have shot the victim”, if the victim was
shot and the cops didn’t tell you that, then they’re going to wonder (in
court, under oath) why it is that you brought up a shooting when they
said nothing about it.
Even if another officer said something about it in your presence.
There’s a very good essay (and video presentation) at http://
www.thisistrue.com/blog-dont_talk_to_the_cops.html - very interesting
reading and viewing.
Jim
Yea… they’ll never see/get that money from her…
> 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…
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.
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
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
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.
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
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.
I just meant that the RIAA will look really bad for suing the woman into
oblivion.
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