news.bbc.co.uk — "A court in the US has ordered a woman to pay $222,000 (?109,000) in damages for illegally downloading music. The jury ordered Jammie Thomas, 32, from Minnesota, to pay for offering to share 24 specific songs online - a cost of $9,250 per song." Oh it's a sad, sad day.
Oct 5, 2007 View in Crawl 4
stormwave0Oct 5, 2007
I don't see what the big deal is here. The case against her was practically bullet proof. No wireless router, same email address username as her kazaa name, and a recently replaced hard drive. It's pretty clear that she was illegally sharing something.Why is everyone bitching against the RIAA here? If they're spending their money on these lawsuits it's their choice. You're the one still purchasing the music and giving them that money.
samus007Oct 5, 2007
She broke the law. Plain and simple. It's been a law for YEARS. You hate America so damn much, go live in China, where they monitor your every internet move.
etandribOct 5, 2007
If you have followed the case on Ars Technica you'll see that she is really guilty. She has a username for Kazaa and has the same username all over the internet. She said that she never downloaded Kazaa. That was the only thing she had going for her, unfortunately it sounded like she was lying about that part. I'm glad she was found guilty.Now that I've said that - I'm not too sure that $222,000 adds up to 24 songs. It is definitely not what the warning labels tell you you'll have to pay for infringement. @DCUK - you still need to pay for music, just pay the band directly and force the RIAA and music labels out of the picture. The artists are working hard (and some labels) to distribute and market their music and it IS WRONG to download music. If you like it buy from the band.