What is Digg?Sponsored by Travelzoo
$52 and Up—Airlines Slash Fares On Peak Holiday Flights. view!
travelzoo.com - This year, waiting until the last minute is NOT the best strategy. See why.
333 Comments
- ReindeerFlotila, on 06/18/2009, -2/+236Sweet Lord... $1.92 million? On what planet is that reasonable?
- inactive, on 06/18/2009, -2/+143WTF is wrong with that jury? $80,000 per song!? Have those lunatics gone mad?
- mnemy, on 06/18/2009, -2/+94That's absurd. I really hope I never have the misfortune on being the defendant in a case with a jury. Unfortunately, people don't take "Innocent until proven guilty" to heart. Instead, it's "Guilty until proven Innocent". People even say "well he looks guilty" and have basically already made up their mind.
In this particular case, it was pretty obvious that she was guilty of sharing copyrighted material. But the punishment for it is WAY out of line. I don't understand how any jury could think that $80,000 per song is in any way justified. Maybe if a COMPANY had been distributing them, but an individual like you and me? $1.92 million? Try $2000 at most. - mrdirkdiggler, on 06/18/2009, -6/+91On Planet Lawyer. At the rate we're going, that'll be the entire US GDP in 2015.
- AndrewDB, on 06/19/2009, -10/+87The RIAA just broke the 8th Amendment of the Constitution of the United States:
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
$1.92 Billion is ridiculously excessive.
At most, she should be fined the cost of the 24 songs, which is about $25. - SpoonMSU, on 06/19/2009, -4/+79So, I'm curious, how much of that $1.92M is going to the artists of the 24 pirated songs?
- dsanonline, on 06/18/2009, -2/+77Like she said, good luck trying to collect.
- roguenkatz, on 06/18/2009, -3/+78I really hope those Harvard Law School guys take the RIAA out to the woodshed.
- fotoman607, on 06/19/2009, -2/+7424 songs? Single mother of two? The RIAA "was pleased"...
insert facepalm here - mark925, on 06/19/2009, -2/+70Time to go download an album in protest.
- aznhomig, on 06/19/2009, -3/+63Oh yeah, what a peachy legal precedent this sets for the rest of us.
***** the RIAA. - elliotys, on 06/19/2009, -1/+580.00
- Khast, on 06/19/2009, -2/+47In other words, the RIAA just found a way to save themselves!
1) Record super hit
2) People Download
3) Sue the downloaders
4) Higher profit than they could ever get selling the CDs. - dafragsta, on 06/19/2009, -1/+45Lawyers got paid. RIAA got a new precedent. They are happier than pigs in *****.
- spiralspirit, on 06/19/2009, -1/+411.92 million too.
- oldcrow, on 06/19/2009, -1/+41The real criminals here are the jurors. Why do they think it's reasonable to ruin someone's life for downloading music?
- lennyrrt, on 06/19/2009, -2/+42***** the RIAA
- ryan6608, on 06/19/2009, -2/+40What kind of upload rate did she have to inflict that kind of damage?
99 cents per song on iTunes
~2.5 minutes to upload a ~3MB song at ~20 kilobytes per second (160 kilobit per second upload)
Isn't that roughly 9 years of continuous uploading and a 100% loss rate (ie: 1 upload = 1 lost sale)? What planet indeed. Someone should do the detailed math to show how stupid it is. - twiztidsinz, on 06/19/2009, -3/+38I hope you get ***** over in a similar fashion B1665r.
- changedmind, on 06/19/2009, -1/+36Reasonable? No, but legal, yes. These are the guys who pay your representatives in DC their real salaries.
- labantnet, on 06/18/2009, -1/+36If she made 40,000 per year and gave them her entire paycheck it would take over 50 years of working to pay. How could anyone pay that?
- mc88, on 06/19/2009, -2/+36Who the hell were the people on this jury? Definitely not a "jury of her peers". These are probably the same ***** who head up homeowners associations and send you a threatening letter when your grass gets over 2 inches long.
You can see guilty, you can even see monetary damages, but fining her more money than she will ever make in a lifetime? WTF - maz2331, on 06/19/2009, -4/+37Actually, it may well hit the 8th's prohibition, as the statutory damages were created by Congress and awarded by a court.
This will be appealed on multiple grounds, and quite likely overturned. The Supreme Court has precident indicating that they are leaning away from these grossly excessive awards, and this would be the perfect test case. - inactive, on 06/19/2009, -0/+33Introducing math would be introducing logic to the courtroom. Obviously we can't have that.
- siszam, on 06/19/2009, -4/+35So you think people should be penalized for refusing to give in to extortionists and for using the legal system to defend themselves?
- maz2331, on 06/18/2009, -1/+31They will never actually collect it, but can have the courts sieze almost everything she owns and attach her paycheck up to IIRC 50%.
I hope they can appeal the statutory damages as blatantly unconstitutional though. - oldhick, on 06/19/2009, -3/+32@B1665r, "I am not an arrogoant dumb ass"...
Yes you are. - thejokell, on 06/18/2009, -2/+30You're not innocent until proven guilty in a civil case. This verdict definitely sucks, but don't get criminal law confused with civil.
- indyGuy, on 06/19/2009, -8/+34***** you very much.
- Leezus, on 06/19/2009, -3/+28Damages implies that they lost 1.92 million dollars for her downloading music.
I don't see how any of those things makes it more reasonable to assume that the copyright holder lost 80,000 dollars for every song she downloaded. - boris675, on 06/18/2009, -6/+31The people who work for the RIAA need to be taken out of the gene pool
1.92 million?........ really?... really?..... - thequadlaser, on 06/19/2009, -8/+31well it looks like nobody will ever pirate music ever again.
- jjheath, on 06/19/2009, -1/+24***** RIAA and stupid jury. how is that a fair amount of money? how did she cost them 1.92 million dollars? i cannot WAIT until those ***** go belly-up, with the MPAA right behind them. *****.
- whurd, on 06/19/2009, -2/+24Eighth Amendment:
"Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted." - stoanhart, on 06/19/2009, -15/+37Oops, bury this.
- awesinine, on 07/15/2009, -2/+24obvious troll is obvious.
stop feeding the troll! - Kitakaze, on 06/19/2009, -4/+2524 songs, that's say, 2 CDs — lets be generous and say that's worth about $30. On what planet do you get fined $1.91 million for stealing $30? (Aside from the whole fact that stealing means taking something away from someone — this is more like someone making perfect duplicate of an item worth $30; I will still have the item.)
What crimes could you commit, and be fined $1.91 million? - dagamer34, on 06/19/2009, -1/+21DDoS and Spam.
- inactive, on 06/19/2009, -1/+21But there's no way to prove that the people who downloaded the songs would have bought them! They would NOT have bought them anyways. Why take them? Because they're free! For real, how hard is it to understand? The damages are outright lunacy and put her in financial ruin. It's total BS and you all know it.
The people who support this kind of ruling are the ones who are going to help burn this great country to ashes. There's still time to save it, don't buy into the BS anymore. - MisterMajusty, on 06/19/2009, -1/+20***** you! You can't tell me what to do!
- commenter01, on 06/19/2009, -2/+21the fundamentals are still the same. you cannot simply sue someone and win. you've got to prove your cause of action. what differs is *how much* is needed to prove the case. in a criminal case, it's beyond a reasonable doubt, and in a civil case it's much less.
also, in a civil case no one is "innocent or guilty". - inactive, on 06/19/2009, -2/+20correction
legislature voted on the lobbyist written bill that they never read ... like all other bills - shrudheuie, on 06/19/2009, -4/+21That's *****. I hope each and every juror get slapped with a $20,000 fine for jaywalking. It's more like a 7 year junk mail sentence though because she will now file bankruptcy. As soon as the bankruptcy is finished someone should start a collection to get her back on her feet. We should all send the RIAA a dollar that we've used to wipe our asses. Just to pitch in.
- deadasdisco, on 06/19/2009, -0/+17or five.
- SparQy, on 06/19/2009, -4/+21I've been following this case, and the jury had good reason to want to throw the book at her. The KaZaA account was in her name, her hard drive wiped days after the infringement notification was sent... not good.
It's pretty obvious that she *did* share the files. Her lying about it makes this not the best case to rally behind.
I'd rather someone who stood up and said "filesharing is NOT a crime" rather than "wasn't me..." - siszam, on 06/19/2009, -0/+17Doctors who have killed patients have paid less in damages than this woman did for downloading.
- treas, on 06/19/2009, -3/+20Jurors are randomly chosen from the voting population of the united states. Therefore, the jurors are indeed stupid.
- inactive, on 06/19/2009, -3/+19B1665r, people like you make me sick. Have you no empathy? At the very least you have no sense of fairness in damages. If I was on that jury it would have been hung you rotten SOB. Not everyone is falling for the BS any more you ***** prick. Congrats, you're the first person on digg I've ever wanted to punch in the throat.
- shrudheuie, on 06/19/2009, -7/+22The Constitution puts restrictions on the Government not private people or businesses.
- FreddieD, on 06/19/2009, -2/+17Holy crap, people still use KaZaA?
-
Show 51 - 100 of 345 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is