Woman Fined $1.9 Million for Downloading 24 Songs

HungryJoe

In her never-ending quest to extinguish all the happiness from my life, my wife greeted me this morning not with a pleasant, "Good morning, honey", but with "Ha! I told you that you can get in trouble for downloading songs from the internets!"

Some things I've read so far have somewhat mitigated the impact, such as rumors that the RIAA offered to settle before trial for $3K, and that she actually had about 1700 songs downloaded. It's still not a happy thing. What does everyone think about this?

Kate Monster

In her never-ending quest to extinguish all the happiness from my life, my wife...

Umm... wow.

Li_Akahi

I think that most music is far too expensive for the quality that you actually get. There are very few bands that I would want to buy one of their albums at full price and most of them aren't even putting out new albums.

...

Move here, to the Netherlands, where downloading any data is legal, just refrain from uploading, which is pretty easy if you just stick to DDL, IRC and Usenet. Either way, 80K/song is ludicrous. Was some insanely inflated calculation used for calculating the 'damages' caused by her downloading those 24 songs?

flux

Was some insanely inflated calculation used for calculating the 'damages' caused by her downloading those 24 songs?

randint()

Apreche

This case was very simple. There was no doubt whatsoever that this person downloaded, and distributed, these songs. In court, the question of the day was "did she do it?" The clear answer was yes, and thus she was found guilty.

If the lawyers had any balls, they would have made a real argument. There was no question that she had done it. Therefore, the only hope of winning was to argue that there was no harm in her doing it, and it was ok to do it. If necessary, also argue for fair use or unconstitutionality of related laws. I actually think the lawyers were irresponsible in this case. If they weren't going to mount an actual defense, they should have plead guilty.

The other thing I would like to point out is that everyone who is getting caught for file sharing are incredibly stupid people using Kazaa, which is itself malware. Notice how none of the people being sued are smart Internets people? I mean, even if you don't use any encryption at all, the record companies are not smart enough to find you if you use any sort of technology other than the stupidest Kazaa shit. And they are lucky that they don't know how to find such people. If they did, they would find themselves with a technologically intelligent opponent in court.

Adelbert

An opponent who would do what?
Lawyers are expensive - almost anyone would prefer to settle outside the court.

Apreche

An opponent who would do what?

Someone who knew about computers would be able to argue for the inherent deniability of the technology. Of course, as I said, it's a catch-22. Anyone smart enough to win in court is smart enough to avoid ever going to court.

flux

Anyone smart enough to win in court is smart enough to avoid ever going to court.

A lot of people state or imply that they illegally download on forums. Don't know if the record companies could sue you for that though.

Apreche

A lot of people state or imply that they illegally download on forums. Don't know if the record companies could sue you for that though.

I killed somebody.

Does this mean that I can now be arrested for murder? No.

Lyddi

I don't understand how they can justify charging her that much per song. Did they have to prove that each song made them actually lose $80,000? (I am assuming no). What's stopping them from asking $1 million per song, or more?

To me its like someone said "so and so stole # things from me" while each of those things was from the dollar store, and said "I am suing $80,000 per object stolen." If your home is robbed, do you get to sue the burglar an obscene amount of money that you made up for whatever they stole, way more than they were worth? Are you allowed to say "so and so stepped on my foot # times and caused me pain, I am suing $XXXXXX money for each step!" and win?

I obviously don't know much about the legal system, but this just doesn't seem right at all. She has to pay an obscene amount of money that, chances are, she doesn't have. Chances are that nobody they will ever sue has that kind of money. What happens to someone who can't pay it? Do they lose every possession they own, including their house, car, etc? Are they thrown out into the street or in jail? And all of this for downloading $24 worth of songs.

/angry rant

lackofcheese

$80,000 per song is indeed completely ridiculous. I'd certainly like to know how that sort of thing is justified in court.

Churba

I think that most music is far too expensive for the quality that you actually get. There are very few bands that I would want to buy one of their albums at full price and most of them aren't even putting out new albums.

Can't argue that - CDs tend to be about 25-30 dollars in Australia (I don't know about the US, sorry) and most bands are not worth the 20-30 dollars you're paying for 14-20 tracks, especially considering that it often costs less to buy the entire thing off iTunes and just strip the DRM.

Apreche

There's a law that says that the penalty can be anywhere from $X to $Y per song. Then the judge/jury are free to decide any number within that range.

lackofcheese

Yeah, I looked it up.
HR 3456, Digital Theft Deterrence and Copyright Damages Improvement Act of 1999
The penalty is $750-$30,000, but the maximum is $150,000 if it's "willful."

Obama's administration has supported the $150,000 penalty as well, it seems:
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2009/03/obama-sides-wit-2/

It would seem that the primary reason for the severity of the penalties is in order to act as a deterrent.

Li_Akahi

Can't argue that - CDs tend to be about 25-30 dollars in Australia (I don't know about the US, sorry) and most bands are not worth the 20-30 dollars you're paying for 14-20 tracks, especially considering that it often costs less to buy the entire thing off iTunes and just strip the DRM.

They used to be that much when CDs first came out, but they have dropped over the years to around 15-25 dollars. Where are you getting albums with 14-20 songs? Most albums I see have a maximum of 12 songs, but are more often contain under 10.

Sail

When I buy CDs, they're usually no more than $12.

ayameiris

Where are you getting albums with 14-20 songs? Most albums I see have a maximum of 12 songs, but are more often contain under 10.

That all depends on the artist. Some do a modest 10-12 songs others, like Christina Aguilera, overdo it with like 17-22 songs. While I understand that, yeah, she wasn't exactly net savvy enough to avoid getting caught, I'm more interested in who the artists of the 24 songs are. The $80,000 fine is just to make an example out of her but I would find it hilarious if the 24 songs she's being charged for happen to be by crappy artists.

WindUpBird

I mean, even if you don't use any encryption at all, the record companies are not smart enough to find you if you use any sort of technology other than the stupidest Kazaa shit.

I used encryption with bittorrent and PG2, and my ISP was still smart enough to sniff any supposedly outlawed traffic I was bringing down and inform me of it. The big problem right now is that ISPs are acting like the bitches of the copyright cartels.

Until we start getting net neutral ISPs who never, EVER disclose traffic information or threaten your connection without a warrant and a substantive charge, we're not going to see much change in the situation. That being said, the elimination of Sarkozy's insidious "three strikes and your out" rule for internet copyright offenders was a step in the right direction. However, the fact that I can't get an Ubuntu DVD image just because the protocol I need to use to download it is disliked by my ISP is revolting.

Apreche

I used encryption with bittorrent and PG2, and my ISP was still smart enough to sniff any supposedly outlawed traffic I was bringing down and inform me of it. The big problem right now is that ISPs are acting like the bitches of the copyright cartels.

Your ISP must have smart peoples.

WindUpBird

I used encryption with bittorrent and PG2, and my ISP was still smart enough to sniff any supposedly outlawed traffic I was bringing down and inform me of it. The big problem right now is that ISPs are acting like the bitches of the copyright cartels.

Your ISP must have smart peoples.

I know. It worries me.

Churba

Can't argue that - CDs tend to be about 25-30 dollars in Australia (I don't know about the US, sorry) and most bands are not worth the 20-30 dollars you're paying for 14-20 tracks, especially considering that it often costs less to buy the entire thing off iTunes and just strip the DRM.

They used to be that much when CDs first came out, but they have dropped over the years to around 15-25 dollars. Where are you getting albums with 14-20 songs? Most albums I see have a maximum of 12 songs, but are more often contain under 10.

I haven't bought a CD in about six years or so, so I'm a little out of the loop.

Dkong

When I buy CDs, they're usually no more than $12.

I just bought a CD at a concert for $10. There are 21 full length tracks. Really, CDs are hit or miss (in America). Sometimes you get shit like I just mentioned, and other times you get chickenshit 25 minute CDs for like $15.

I generally only buy CDs if it's a band I really love or if the price per song is well under $1.

Sail

Kilarney

Here is some happier news.

Nuri

You could just buy songs DRM-free from an online marketplace and not risk getting caught doing something illegal. Being able to pick only the songs I want makes it well worth the 99 cent price. The rules and penalties are clear. People bitch about having to pay for shit all the time, but that doesn't mean you have a legal right to ignore copyright law.

If you only had to pay what the songs were worth, then why NOT steal them? If you get caught, you only have to pay what you would have paid anyway. THAT is the biggest reason that the fines are so high. If you steal from a store and they catch you, do you think they will only make you pay for what you took?

Walker

f you only had to pay what the songs were worth, then why NOT steal them? If you get caught, you only have to pay what you would have paid anyway. THAT is the biggest reason that the fines are so high. If you steal from a store and they catch you, do you think they will only make you pay for what you took?

Stealing something with a retail value of 99 cents from a store usually results in a petty theft charge, and often results in nothing more than an official warning if the thief is a minor. Nobody is being fined $80,000 for a pack of gum.

Omnutia

What would you have to actually steal to land a fine that large? Maybe a nice car?

As far as I can gather, most of the fine comes from the "making available" part which is based on piracy and bootlegging laws aimed at commercial piracy. Any lawyer types able to clarify?

lackofcheese

I don't think so, Omnutia. It's just the statutory damages for copyright infringement, as far as I can tell.

Here is something to note, though:
The effectiveness of a deterrent is (probability of being caught) * (penalty for being caught). They set the penalties high to make the deterrent effective.
It means that a select few are being punished for the copyright infringement of many, but that's how it is. I'm not going to say it's morally justified, but there's certainly logic behind it.

Lyddi

I don't think so, Omnutia. It's just the statutory damages for copyright infringement, as far as I can tell.

Here is something to note, though:
The effectiveness of a deterrent is (probability of being caught) * (penalty for being caught). They set the penalties high to make the deterrent effective.
It means that a select few are being punished for the copyright infringement of many, but that's how it is. I'm not going to say it's morally justified, but there's certainly logic behind it.

That is definitely true. That is probably the main justification they use to get away with it. Although the fact that they are selfish, money-loving, downright evil people that mostly attack financially struggling college students (because they are easier to track), has a lot to do with it.

They have more than collected enough money to make up for the music that has been stolen. Cases like this woman's isn't the main source for all the money they are getting. Every time they sue someone, the first thing the RIAA does is tell them they can pay something like $3000 or so to settle. Since that person probably cannot afford to take it to court and wants to avoid more trouble (like paying an even more ridiculous $1.9 million), they will just dish out the money. The RIAA now gets $3000 for 20 or so songs. This way, they make more money than actually selling music. It is a very profitable business strategy.

Nuri

I really don't think this is about the damage money for them. They put a lot of time and expense into tracking people down and court costs. I'm sure the real reason they go after college students is because that is the main problem demographic. It's much more effective to target your scare tactics toward the people who are most likely to infringe. I guarantee you people were much more restrained about sharing files when FBI agents showed up in our dorm and confiscated all of one of my friends' computers. He had been sharing tons of movies over the college network, and they busted his ass for it. Suddenly sharing files online became a lot less crucial to our lives.

As for copyright infringement, making the stolen files available is part of that infringement. The damages are going to be much higher if you share the thing you illegally copied because the financial harm is now greater. If you download the song, the company loses maybe $1. If you share the song on p2p and 50 people download it, the music company has lost $50, PLUS whatever they lose from THOSE people sharing it. Apply this to 20 songs, and suddenly you are not in petty theft territory anymore.

Of course, saddling a woman who obviously has no financial means to pay the exorbitant fee with a fine like this is retarded. Where exactly do they think they are going to get the money? I suspect there will be more to this, particularly things that go on behind the scenes. Produce a ludicrous verdict as a warning to pirates, and then work out something more reasonable in private to deal with that verdict in a more productive way. Of course, they could be dicks and force her into bankruptcy, too.