Jury orders music swapper to pay $1.92 MILLION

apanell · Post by **apanell** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:11 pm

what kind of jury would agree with that kind of fine?

maybe there's a more fundamental problem here... ha

Ciaran_ · Post by **Ciaran_** » Fri Jun 19, 2009 9:15 pm

I'm amazed that, in theory they could have charged her $150,000 per track... fck man. Total nightmare

trak660 · Post by **trak660** » Sat Jun 20, 2009 8:41 am

Ciaran_ wrote:I'm amazed that, in theory they could have charged her $150,000 per track... fck man. Total nightmare

I'm amazed that they are able to build cases against pirates by offering the files themselves on networks and then going after whoever takes them.

miroslav · Post by **miroslav** » Sun Jun 21, 2009 10:37 pm

revy wrote:the only good thing I see out of this, is that she stood up for herself and didn't settle outside of court, and now those big record companies are looking like pretty big a-holes...

Before this outcome, I actually would have thought that it would be smarter for her to settle outside of court than to take this on... She was clearly in the wrong, and she could have settled for a very small fraction of this penalty.

That said, the sheer ridiculous size of this actually now does play in her favor. That $1.9 million fine is certainly ridiculous, and it will be a permanent public relations disaster for the RIAA. They will find it very hard to get governments and other groups to work with them to enforce copyright laws if the outcomes look like this. I don't think she will ever end up paying anything near this amount; they'll probably end up negotiating something reasonable outside of court. But the damage to the RIAA is done.

.S.K.A.P.E. · Post by **.S.K.A.P.E.** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:07 pm

that was a while back... did they just have the appeal recently?
in the original hearing only a couple of jurors claimed to have knowledge of anything music or internet related..
not like the old days when u had to be a landowner to be on a jury now is it

.S.K.A.P.E. · Post by **.S.K.A.P.E.** » Fri Jul 03, 2009 5:10 pm

oh.. and at that time heard something about they were sending out notices to a whole bunch of people.. most paid the paid.. she didn't..
but heard that the ones issued to students at elite collleges were responded to by the college themself and they were dropped.
can't have the future leaders of America with that on their records now can we.

and can't remember exactly but it might have been in that first trial where part of their argument was that there's a huge drop in cd sales & tried relating it to f-sharing, but there was no mention in legal digital sales, let alone the rapid annual increase in digital sales..

but don't file share peoples.. unless it's under a creative commons license that lets you do so legally. nothing on a amjor labels worth listening to anyway

djreagen · Post by **djreagen** » Sun Jul 05, 2009 1:48 am

i wish they caught someone that illegally downloads my music, give him or her a 2 million dollar fine and give that money to me.

I would make more money than i would ever make in my whole life doing music

Post by **John Clees** » Mon Jul 06, 2009 3:49 am

I truely can't stand this argument/term the "cd sales" have dropped.. the rest of the world economy is falling completely apart. EVERYONE knows for over a decade they charged $20 for two good tracks on a cd and they blame it on file sharing : here's a concept : in every country in the world the economy is suffering. bank institutions went bankrupt over night. unemployment is up and people with families/children are without jobs..

how can they just dismiss this truth and in conclusion say "our cd sales have dropped" and then target/sue civilians.. I just will never get that perspective as if the rest of (the entire world) isn't apart of their projected profit & budget statements.

PURE GREED