

Woman illegally downloads 24 songs, fined to tune of $1.9 million - dionidium
http://www.cnn.com/2009/CRIME/06/18/minnesota.music.download.fine/index.html

======
fauigerzigerk
I suspect she wasn't fined for downloading 24 songs but for distributing the
songs to others. Still, that's an excessive fine.

All legal systems that I know are completely broken because the consequences
of losing are so different for the parties involved. For that woman, losing
the case means total financial ruin for the rest of her life. If the RIAA had
lost, it would be just a blip in their legal budget if anything.

In my view, the right way to set fines would be to ask, what percentage of
their profit have record companies lost due to the actions of that woman. She
should be fined that same percentage of her disposable income (excluding
minimum wage).

~~~
netsp
A purpose of fines & other punishment is to .deter

Very broadly speaking, two things go in to deterrence: (perceived) Chance of
getting caught * (perceived) Cost of getting caught = deterence. To improve
deterrence you need to increase one of these. There obviously isn't enough
deterrence to stop illegal downloading/distribution. Higher fines are an
easier option then more fines.

~~~
joecode
That would be a pretty good argument except for this woman's particular
circumstances. She's a mother of 4 children and works at an Indian
reservation. So chances are, she has very little disposable income, and
wouldn't buy the songs otherwise. So what message is the RIAA trying to send
by going after her? That they are ruthless bastards? They should go after
people who _can_ pay for the stuff.

~~~
seertaak
> That would be a pretty good argument except for this woman's particular
> circumstances.

Should her circumstances also be taken into account if she robs a bank?

Justice is personified as being blind for a reason. You break the law, you pay
the price. There's no: you broke the law, but factor X and Y should increase
our leniency. That's a recipe for chaos I'm afraid.

~~~
menloparkbum
_There's no: you broke the law, but factor X and Y should increase our
leniency._

Actually you're completely wrong. The legal system is there to look at factors
X and Y and determine if and how they should affect the ensuing penalties or
awards.

------
ghshephard
I'm wondering if everyone is as annoyed as me when the press consistently gets
the crux of the matter incorrect in its headlines:

" Woman illegally downloads 24 songs, fined to tune of $1.9 million"

The issue was the _sharing_ of 24 songs, not the downloading.

Thomas-Rasset also is not the most innocent of those who have gone to court...
Great write up on the entire case here:

[http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jury-
selecte...](http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/06/jury-selected-in-
thomas-retrial-shockingly-law-abiding.ars)

"Thomas-Rasset had used Napster for a college course and had written a paper
on it, arguing that it was legal. She also admitted that she followed the
court case that shut Napster down and knew that it was not legal. Given her
knowledge and experience with file-sharing, her claim never to have heard of
KaZaA and never to have downloaded files might seem suspect."

~~~
lurkinggrue
That is true but the fine is rather excessive.

------
pygy
Wouldn't it be possible to organise a DDOJ attack in Minesota?

If this makes jurisprudence, you could flood the tribunals by simply,
massively admitting filesharing, couldn't you (I say "you" because I not from
the US)?

~~~
gjm11
Distributed Denial of Justice?

~~~
pygy
:-)

------
dejan
Although I have lived in the US, and love it for many reasons, I have to say
that this stuff is "Only in America"..Here is my rant on this..

US is all about the money, screwing up someone, suing someone and going to
court. It is one big capitalistic system that hurts only the people worldwide.
Everything is messed up, starting from IRS, government, army and politics,
education, food, patents, and especially things like this - "copyright". Yes,
my life goal is to make someone rich. How about some honor and doing something
for the society without "profits first"?

I almost puked when I saw that John La Grou smart power outlet - we will save
lives etc...and we filed many patents. Save lives? Give the technology as
free, and build other means around it for sustaining own costs.

Should have Tesla patented his inventions with the US approach, most of the
world would have been in the dark ages, where computer is not possible,
Internet doesn't exist and healthcare is power-less. Should he have dictated
the progress of the world? No. The world as we know it, is made from minds
that think of social progress, not this invented thing called money. US
dishonored Tesla, (most even think Tesla is a car now!!), and named a nice
little corner in NYC, instead of teaching real values in schools.

Laws do support growth of startups indeed, but that is the side-effect which
truly should be taken as an example. Everything else, plain wrong.

I do not think reproducing material or sharing is something that is wrong.
People in the US just wrote that it is, while in nature of the Internet it is
not. Let me guess, downloading youtube video is also illegal? Than sue my
browser's cache.

I really feel sick when reading stuff like this, for goodness sake, this is
not the first time nor the last, meaning something there is broken, so change
it.

I am boycotting buying CDs from those retards calling themselves artists. They
are all about the money, not art. Real artists do things for the love of it,
not the money. And when I see that, I feel great donating my money directly to
them to hear more of that.

Disclaimer: I am some nationality as Tesla, but that is no reason why I
mention him. He is the most important scientist of all times.

------
mynameishere
Blood, turnip. Anyway the riaa has moved on from that misguided tactic.

