What is Digg?43 Comments
- capu, on 10/10/2007, -2/+21"The US record industry said people would understand the verdict."
No. We understand that the money we DO put into legal purchases is being spent on these petty little lawsuits that wreck peoples lives. Go and ***** yourselves. - barnis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+16someone should setup a paypal account for her...we can all pitch in $1 :)
- bobbagoose, on 10/10/2007, -0/+7Oh *****...Looks like I'm in for a $25,900,000 fine any day now.....
Gotta go, someone at the door.... - Grimdotdotdot, on 10/10/2007, -2/+9And those tracks were;
*Guns N Roses "Welcome to the Jungle" and "November Rain."
*Vanessa Williams "Save the Best for Last."
*Janet Jackson "Let's What Awhile."
*Gloria Estefan "Here We Are," "Coming Out of the Heart" and "Rhythm is Gonna Get You."
*Goo Goo Dolls "Iris."
*Journey "Faithfully" and "Don't Stop Believing."
*Sara McLachlan "Possession" and "Building a Mystery."
*Aerosmith "Cryin' "
*Linkin Park "One Step Closer."
*Def Leppard "Pour Some Sugar on Me."
*Reba McEntire "One Honest Heart."
*Bryan Adams "Somebody."
*No Doubt "Bathwater," "Hella Good" and "Different People."
*Sheryl Crow "Run Baby Run."
*Richard Marx "Now and Forever."
*Destiny's Child "Bills, Bills, Bills."
*Green Day "Basket Case." - 46reasons, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Wow, this seems a little bit excessive. Are they trying to ruin her life? If they can prove she did something illegal, fine, she should be punished... but not in the form of 222k.
- dyonak, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6I'd like to get her to setup a PayPal so we can donate but I can't find her number to talk to her about it. I tried dexonline and 411 for Brainerd, MN but I can't find her listing. Any cyber sleuths out there able to find it? If so friend me and send me a shout.
- jockser, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5I am never EVER going to buy music that comes from any label associated with the RIAA.
I'm done with "legal" music, and good luck suing me for I live in Israel.
I will gladly pay for music only if it is sold directly from the artist. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+5That amounts to almost 10,000 times what it would have cost to pay for them.
That's way to excessive. - ayeroxor, on 10/10/2007, -4/+9come on, people. The original to this dupe is 5 articles below on the front page. Please help Digg function and mark this as a dupe.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -3/+8Good luck getting all that money!
They just don't understand how people consume music anymore, there's no way people are going to pay to listen to all their music. We download, we share then if you've done a good job a certain amount will purchase, see the group live or purchase some other merchandise. Music is free today.
If I had to buy ALL the music I listen too, it'd cost me over £89,000. Not going to happen. - SharkyTech, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Exactly my thoughts, you beat me to it. This woman was standing up for everyone the RIAA has bullied when she went to court against them. That someone should be fined so much for this when drink driving offenders get what amounts to a slap on the wrist. I don't care if she did download the music, she deserves a medal for standing up to the RIAA.
- TjLAXattack, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Hopefully she can at least keep the songs. That way she can listen to "Bill, Bills, Bills" when she's filing for bankruptcy.
- tauofbeef, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6why why why????
Just out of interest how much of the $9,250 will go to the artists who she has "allegedly" taken money away from. I think we all know the answer to this is would be the sum of, owwww i don't know, about $0. - XIUgraag, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3Gonna upload the songs twice to piss them off.
- askmewhy, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I haven't bought a CD for years. It use to really annoy me buying a CD for £12.99, before ever listening to it, only to get it home and find out there was two good songs on it. With free downloads I now listen to a whole lot more music and if its something I like I go and watch the band and maybe by a bit of merchandise.
- thespiff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Exactly. I very rarely buy a CD anymore without test-driving it first (illegally). Why spend $15 on music that sucks? I always support the artist if I like the music though. I have a fairly large CD collection, and 90% of the 20GB on my iPod is legal. Nobody is going to take me to court for letting my buddy borrow one of my CDs, but if I share that same music with strangers online it's totally different. It's all so damn frustrating.
- lornefs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2It's time to crush the music industry, why should art be a business?
It's not even (usually) a business for the artist but a living, only the big corporation are raking in the big bucks.
Big music only exists so that the top 1 percent (and certainly not the best) artists get the attention of the masses.
These music "stars" are manufactured by the labels and forced down the publics throat by endless radio play and flashy videos.
2 words, Encrypted Usenet.
***** the RIAA! - lornefs, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No, she shared 1,702 songs but they only focused on 24 of them.
- dreesemonkey, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2No actually it's just regular digg users that are sick of seeing duplicate stories on the front page at the same time.
- SharkyTech, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Yes, agreed, a 'slap on the wrist' was an exaggeration of the triviality of the penalties. You must however question the priorities of a system that fines repeat offenders a maximum of $3000 for DUI (http://www1.umn.edu/usls/pdfs/DWI.pdf) while fining $10000 each offense for copying a file.
- SharkyTech, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3"same email address username as her kazaa name, and a recently replaced hard drive. It's pretty clear that she was illegally sharing something."
Ok, Stormwave0, I'll be on the p2p clients tonight using your username. Also, you're not allowed to replace your hard drive at any stage because it makes you LOOK GUILTY. I don't care what something looks like, I was under the impression that courts required PROOF. (also, why the hell would you get rid of a hard drive to get rid of data when you could just use software to over-write the information multiple times.)
Besides, whether or not she did it is not the focus of this story. The outrage is over the fact that she now has to pay quarter of a million dollars for the 24 songs that the prosecution focussed on. - Syntaxis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Good idea, but how do you make sure the money actually ends up where it belongs? I'd donate more than 1 Dollar if I knew for sure it'd land in the right place...
- Hojohto, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1As if Duluth didn't suck enough already.
- qxcvr, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I simply don't understand the verdicts that jurys send down any more. So many of them make little sense. It is scary because the jury system is the last place where a single person, a regular joe, can make a difference, yet when given the opportunity, Juries side with the massive corporations that are creating the problems in the first place. When did a piece of paper filed with a state secretary in delaware (which is all a company is) become more powerful and more influencial in our government than a citizen? I just dont see how this can be. I feel shameful to live in a country where the rich take from those who have so little. it seems so wrong that those with billions of dollars can FORCE $1000 out of a college student who has nothing. I feel like i live in the 1300's where a lord could take anything he wanted from the serfs that surrounded him and they could do nothing to stop him. Hell the serfs sitting in the Jury even SUPPORT them. Ruining someone's life for listening to a song. I don't live in America any more. I don't know where I live, but it is not the USA.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I'm tired of seeing artists come out with "new" CD's just to find one or two new songs and the rest a bunch of "remastered" old stuff.
I'm curious as to how many of those songs she downloaded were played over the airways for free. Sure, the radios stations paid to play them. But once it's been transmitted, it's fair game. - thespiff, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1It is wrong to steal music. I don't believe that it is wrong to share music. If I loan my friend a CD and he burns a copy, is that my fault? Am I committing a crime for lettign someone borrow my property?
But these same rules do not apply online. If I send someone an MP3 to listen to and they keep that forever, how is it that I can be fined for it? I didn't neccesarily steal anything. It's like leaving my car parked on the street with the keys in the ignition and then fining me when it gets stolen.
But since the RIAA has no method for successful prosecution of music thieves, only music sharers, they're sending the wrong message. It's not dangerous for me to steal music, it's only dangerous for me to share it with others. This is just one of the absurdities of the RIAA's practices. - etandrib, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1If 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. - pathy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Bulletproof is a bit of a stretch - but yes, it's a pretty weak case she had. I'm amazed she didn't settle.
Honestly, unless you didn't do it, or you're very tech savvy, you shouldn't be going to court with these guys.
Not that that excuses the tactics they use and amount they asking for. - inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1No it is not wrong to download music. I will never limit myself to what I can listen to based on my financial situation, it's an art that is free to listen to and you can give people money if you see fit. Just like I wouldn't pay to LOOK at a painting, I won't pay to LISTEN to music. . . . but if I enjoy it enough, I will give money to the artist in some way, in addition I will share that music with friends so they too can listen to something great. . . . this is how things work in 2007.
Do you really think I would EVER spend £89,000 on a selection of music I still consider tiny?!
I would pay them directly, but most people don't give you that option. In fact I would give more money to people that allowed me to pay them direct, I'd end up throwing £5 quite often. - Philter, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I read another story earlier on this case that said she was using Kazaa at the time of the infringement
- cloudyprison, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1The more you tighten your grip, Lord Riaa....the more music fans will slip through your fingers.
- Kyouto, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2I have none of these songs. Cuz they pretty much suck.
But thanks for the list. - robfis, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I thought artists released albums to promote themselves, to get their act out there, so you'd be inclined to see them live -- which would make bands happy to have the masses listening to them you'd think. but now people are putting out albums and not even touring them, or select cities only tours in stadiums, and then they can't recreate the recorded work. $20 dollars is too much for an album considering.
the riaa is ruthless. you can't justify $222k.
check out: defiance ohio and bomb the music industry, two bands that put their own high quality rips on BT. - cloudyprison, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I just listen to older, or off the beaten path music now. It isn't like there is anything good coming out these days.
- samus007, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1She 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.
- general13, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Although I agree with you that the fine is way too much...being caught drunk driving and getting a DUI is hardly a "slap on the wrist" as you call it. Carries some pretty hefty penalties.
- kerjodando, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0This verdict may mean the end of public file sharing.
The potential penalties now outweigh the benefits of sampling tunes for free.
The RIAA will increase the cost of settling out of court following their court win.
Plus there are now alternative ways to hear new music.
Download new bands, independents and unsigned artists
(MySpace, PureVolume, iSound, Overplay, GarageBand.com, DMusic and SoundClick).
Paid-for-by-advert-downloads
(We7 and Spiralfrog).
iTunes and other "legal" download sites - offer 30 second samples.
New/secondhand physical CDs (prices now much lower).
Bluetooth mobile to mobile sharing (main music sampling method used by school kids).
Digital radio (themed stations available on-line e.g Lastfm.com, and broadcast)
Friend to Friend file sharing (only your friends know you're connected not the RIAA)
(Alliance P2P, Freenet 0.7, Dargens.com [new unsigned bands only], Turtle F2F, WASTE etc)
Music streaming websites
(seeqpod.com, null3d.com and hypem.com).
Society benefits from the market economy, music production and consumption is part of that economy so downloading music for free is wrong.
However, the unchallenged power of the big four music companies do not benefit music buyers or artists.
We need independent music companies to have a larger market share to reduce the redress the balance.
My 2p worth. - kc30s, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I wonder which free downloading service she used??? I agree though, music is free to listen to on the radio, and free if you have cable tv service, so should be on the puter too...Just my opinion.
- Stormwave0, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2I 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. - kai1982, on 10/10/2007, -1/+0So let me get this straight...... she shared 24 songs a grand total of 1,702 times.... that's $130.43 per song. I don't know about anyone else but that seems a little excessive. I say we start taking the record companies to court for the crappy bands they decide to produce.
- allioupe, on 10/10/2007, -3/+2God, stop repeating the same story!!! this is 3 now..
Diggers, please don't find the same story from a different paper and Digg it, just so you can see your name on Digg!!! - samus007, on 10/10/2007, -6/+0I'll get dugg down for this, but...
Hasn't it been known for years and years thanks to a red warning label on movies and music that if you STEAL music / movies that there could be a fine of up to 250,000.00 and or 5 years in a federal prison? Well, she broke the law, sh*t happens.
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is