Still, how do you get blood out of a turnip?

From what I understand, wage garnishment of 25% of her gross income for the rest of her life, probably even including any Social Security or retirement pension payments.

Maybe I'm naive, but I'd figure 24 songs at $1.00 each = $24 dollars. Maybe add court costs and/or compound interest to it. There's no way $222,000 is reasonable in my book.

Just for the fun of it, I'd love to see a list of the songs.

there is no better evidence than this to show the law is messed up this regard. the law is holding her liable for all the "lost revenue" suffered because she allowed others to download the songs. ergo, she is held liable for the actions of others. this is what happens when lobbyists buy laws in Congress.

consider if all those people downloaded the songs and then went out and paid for them. seems that by the same token the record company would owe her something in the way of distribution fee's or some such. wanna bet they would pony up or waffle if presented with this circumstance?

Gotta love the whole "Send a Message" mentality.

Oh, wait. I'm sending a message right now.

They are acknowledging that they are doing something disproportionate
to the offense by saying that.

The irony of this discussion is I have never downloaded a song over the internet.
If I want to hear something obscure that I don't have, I can usually find it, listen to it five or six times and get rid of the jones.

How would it be if she borrowed a book from the library copied it and started handing out free copies to everyone she meet on the street? Or offering it free online? Cause what she did is the same thing. How would you like to be Stephen King or some other author only to find out no one is buying your book they are just dowloading and printing up their copy?

Copyright is meant to protect.

Arguing whether or no the laws are fair is a moot point, just as is arguing a speed limit of 35mph when everyone else drives 55, and you get the ticket for doing so. The copyright laws have been in place forever, but nobody gave a hoot about them until the advent of computers, mp3s, and file sharing. From the reading I've done on the subject, the target of the record companies is not necessarily the people who downloaded music, but rather the ones who shared all of their files. To the best of my knowledge, you had the option to NOT share files, or at least direct your downloads to an unshared folder, which would more than likely circumvent being noticed by the RIAA. Still "illegal", but usually out of harm's way.

It's not the 24 or 26 songs they used in the trial, it was the 1700+ songs she was sharing, most of which were "protected". To make matters worse, the RIAA set up their own account with the file sharing program, and downloaded songs from her. They then sent her a PM through the site informing her that she was violating copyright laws, and to stop. She ignored them. Then, after receiving a subpoena, she swapped her hard drive, and claimed she knew nothing about it. AND, she had the option to settle out of court as did most of the people who have been contacted. (mostly in the $3-5000 range)

Her main claim was that she didn't know anything about it, and somebody may have "hacked" her account. Obviously the jury didn't agree.

I don't know............

A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Thanks for filling in the details, Itll.
when someone tells you to stop, then warns you again,
and you keep going, you are reckless.

Mark, I don't think I saw anyone here arguing people should have
free access to copy and or distribute someone else's
intellectual property. Perhaps you saw a statement I didn't.
My question is whether the penalty fits the crime. Simple.
Then again, if they warned her, and they are holding the hammer,
she shouldn't act shocked then they come and whack her with it.

The headlins scream
"BIG BAD CORPORATION BEATS UP POOR DEVOTED MOTHER (OF TWO!).
But the details are what tell the story.
I can certainly understand the music industry's strategy.
They can't afford to let people take their stuff for free,
and they can't sue everyone who downloads or shares songs.

Keep in mind that the information I got is worth what I paid for it..........

way to go Mark, its just like you to defuse an emotional argument by injecting some logic and common sense. i'll bet you are one of those guys who reads the manual too?

May be, but does he fold, bend, spindle, or mutilate?

I've used file sharing programs in the past. But you can bet if I got a warning PM from the RIAA, I'd be scared $hitless and would delete the P2P program as fast as I could hit "Uninstall", and would be putting the .mp3s on a CD and using a multipass wipe/erase program on the save folder. There is NO WAY I'd fool with RIAA henchmen, no matter my view on downloading shared files.

I'm stupid, but not THAT stupid!

But what if the quality of the copy is crappy? skipping pages, bad print, no cover? Just a low quality piece of crap. On the flip side, people buy crap all the time and think its good to. im answering my own question here.

elroy

You don't really need us at all. You ACT like you need us, but we know it's all about you, Elroy. Elroy and his internal monologue, externalized interal monologue.

no, but I do need you, i need you bad. oh sorry bout that, I thought I was texting my girlfriend.

elroy

oh ya, stealing music is bad

Radiohead to give away new album

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtm...bcnradio101.xml


Radiohead generation believes music is free

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/main.jhtm.../ccmusic107.xml