Single Mom Fined $ 1.92 Million for 24 Songs

Remove all ads!

Yep, what the title says.

I know it's not that new, but I find this simply unbelievable. I mean, come on - isn't the job of the judicial system to ensure justice for all sides?

 

The article leaves me scratching my head. I have two major questions that are unanswered:

1.) She seems to be a small time trader in pirated songs - why was she even brought to court?

2.) Why did the jury think that $80,000 per song was a justifiable amount? That seems excessively large for a small-time pirate.

The jury probably knew she was a single mother of two, and she has no hope of ever paying that amount. The jury could have found her liable for just $750 per song according to the article. That's still a hefty $18,000 - but at least in theory she could pay that off over time. She could work the rest of her life and not come up with nearly $2 million.

 

Can they make it any more ridiculous??? (That's not meant as a dare)

The only good thing about this, is that it illustrates jury bias and power abuse within the legal system. Perhaps some good will one day come out of this...

Can the single mom get the debt converted to a jail sentence or something? What are her options?

 

The way I understood it, the RIAA is perfectly aware they won't be getting that money, which is why they said they are ok with a settlement. I think they pushed for such a harsh sentence as an example, maybe citing their total losses due to filesharing. Why the court went along with it... I can not say. At the very least it would seem Ms Thomas-Rasset was made to pay for damages caused by other people as well - the price for which you can buy 24 songs online would hardly be more than 20-30 bucks.

 

Can we say cruel and unusual?

 

I agree that some people are helplessly stupid but still...nearly 3 million dollars seems a bit much even for stupidity

 

Another option is that she willingly let it go this far to get publicity. That she wanted to highlight how ridicioulous, outdated and even corrupt the legal system is when it comes to these issues.

 

Probably not Tal but maybe she felt that she couldn't or was willing to pay even the settlement so might as well go the whole nine yards.

Oh and yes BTA dismantling the rule of law is exactly what the copyright lobbyist and industry is trying their darndest to do. Wouldn't it be much better if Sony themselves could come to your house at night and take you away?

 

These ridiculously high fines might become the end for RIIA.

They are so clearly disproportionate that the question about the sense of excessive punishment comes up. In that sense BTA, the woman was tactically stupid, but that doesn't means she 'had it coming'. The law is egregious. Such a verdict wouldn't have been passed in Germany, and we take property rights quite serious here.

 

Seriously now?

Supply and demand don't determine prices for goods you can effortlessly make perfect copies of, nor is DRM meant to stop pirates - and it never was!

They'd just increase the prices not having any "competition" (the only kind of competition a cartel like the companies RIAA represents can have) - and DRM is meant to stop second hand sales period. DRM was never effective against pirates.

Nevermind that the RIAA and their associates have used the US to run through new copyright laws in other countries. Directly against the constitution of said country in some.

 

BTA - The day I start seeing some of those bankers and Wall Street crooks get what they deserve for their crimes, is the day that your comments will make sense. Yes, they fine a single-mom 1.5 million, but they will give the crooks on Wall Street an extra bonus for stealing. At least when Bush was in office they prosecuted a few of those guys (Enron and Tyco); Obama has yet to even start on regulation and prosecutions for the economic meltdown (I can't believe I'm having to say this about O. again). The ruling is a disgrace.

Believe me, if someone was suing a large corporation for some trival incident and was awarded 1.5 million, the corporate meida would be all over it. The corporate media would be trotting out its army of conservative pundits to rail about "tort reform." Because this is the reverse, where corporate America gets to stick-it to the little person, we won't have any Texas or Oklahoma Congressmen from Podunkia babbling about tort reform for their corporate masters.

 

The woman was stupid. She had several chances to settle (for much less) and lost her first case (again, for much less). Juries are made of average people who really don't like to have anyone waste their time with frivolous cases -- she got hammered because she pissed off the jury.

If a similar frivolous case involves a "Wall Street crook" they simply have attorneys negotiate a payment and pay off the issue before it ever gets to court. She could have done the same thing.

 

I'm sure a single-mom with her "army of lawyers" would have negotiated a deal, just like those "smart" Wall Street characters.

Oh, please, spare me, juries are made up of profiling by attorneys. "Selecting" a good jury is a part of the game. My father was a baliff for 25 years in federal and county court; mostly, the people who even bother to show up are those who have nothing better to do. Although there were times he had to go out into the streets and literally take people down to the jury assembly hall, so that he had enough jurors. I'm sure those people were "real impartial" after being dragged over to the courthouse on their lunch hours downtown. Of course, those people were "pissed off."

BTA - You posted at the same time.

In my opinion, eveyone is entitled to a day in court. What may seem frivolous to some, may be an issue of principle for someone else. It's in the Constitution, that anyone accused of a crime is entitled to a day in court -- and have a fair hearing. If the people on the jury felt they were having their time wasted by listening to her case, they should have broguht a note from home and not bothered, like everyone else does.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jury_selection