Woman ordered to pay $220,000 for downloading 24 songs.

http://www.wcsh6.com/news/article.aspx?storyid=71849

**** those ****ing ****ers...

And also DAMN THE MAN!

 

so, if i had downloaded 3500 songs, 1500 tv episodes, and 150 movies, what kind of fine would i be looking at?

 

What do you Mean "IF"

 

according to the numbers $750 to $150,000 per violation... for the songs alone..

2,625,000 to 525,000,000 USD. enjoy.

 

Well this was $9250 per violation. And as NBC seems to think that TV episodes are worth 5x what a song is, and movies routinely go for about twenty or so times the cost of a song... do the math.


Anyways, can't blame them for finding her guilty, but the fine is absolutely absurd. Even $9.25 a song would have been rather nuts, unless she was the one that leaked them initially.

 

If she's guilty then that's fine, but forcing her to pay a stupid fine is not.
Something like $0.99*24 (iTunes price) would be totally fair.

 

Well in honesty retail price doesn't make since because everyone would pirate and then just pay normal pricing if they get caught. More like $50 an album would make sense - not to the point of bankrupting someone (as the mafiaa so enjoys), but enough that the paranoid wouldn't bother.

Of course, I can't say I'm big on the idea of lawsuits as a deterrent in any sense, but strictly speaking, it doesn't make much more sense to charge the iTunes pricing.

 

Porn.

 

^^^ lol

 

More like fined $220,000 for uploading.

 

Yes, she got fined because she supplied them, some way around were it's not illegal to download but it's illegal to distribute, something around that sort of thing.

 

No she got fined because she "made available" and that "making available is the same as distirbution" welcome to the world of idiot lawyers\judges and jurors

It was never shown that someone downloaded the songs nor was it shown that she came into possesion of the songs illegally.

 

My intentions were correct just worded incorrectly then.

 

That doesn't wash with me. What else would she have Kazaa for, except to distribute/make available (and yes, it is the same) her music?

 

How else is mal/spyware gonna get spread around to all the other sheep that use those types of proggies? I think I'm gonna load up Lime-wire right now...I have an identity that needs to get stolen! Pronto!

 

Kazaa used to auto add music perhaps she ripped it (though carly still thinks this is stealing(face meet palm)) and Kazaa just added it
Kazaa could of been used for other things.

ianal but while making available has to occur prior to distribution, distribution does not always occur after something being made available.

liable she is at the moment the case will hopefully go to appeal and if possible get sent back to a jury trial where they allow people with knowledge about computers and networks and p2p programs on the jury

and hopefully she gets a new lawyer and the lawmakers grow a spine and stop taking bribes from the mafiaa

 

Deliberately making available is the same as distribution (e.g. a guy on a marketstall selling illegal DVDs is still breaking the law, even if he doesn't manage to sell any). Kazaa could have been used for other types of files (although I wreck my brains to think of what else one would want to download on P2P), but if it added her music to its distribution list, then she made the music available, sorry. All she could do is plead ignorance of that Kazaa does this, and that seems kind of unlikely to me.

I think the fine is overblown, and probably this will come down in negotiations with the plaintiff. But she did knowingly break the law.

 

the guy with the dodgy dvds is slightly different he is standing there offering them for sale.
But her actions are similar to putting up some mp3s that i have purchased so i can listen to them from work.

While Kazaa is not used as much for it but CC licensed and public domain stuff is distributed on p2p systems all the time

The fine is overblown significantly i believe the reason that the politicians used is that the laws are designed to attack commercial infringement (but then again the fines were raised after copying tech became cheaper but no changes to the classifications)

Copyright laws are simply attempts to protect an outmodded business model
they will not cause john lennon to make more music

Please note my views on this case are partially related to my views on the mafiaa and IP ******** laws in general (5yr+ 1 renewal on escrow)

 

Not the same thing, I'm afraid. If you put up some mp3s for personal use, you are presumably not making them available to the public. Unless you put them up in such a way that anyone can copy them, in which case you are.

 

If by anybody you mean anybody who knows about it. Then probably yes I am "Making available" the works.
then again Australia has no fair use privilages (and its a hypothetical) and since everything in computers is making a copy then i am probably in breach of Australias law