24 songs= $80,000 per song.

[Dimmauk]

Thomas-Rasset downloaded work by artists such as No Doubt, Linkin Park, Gloria Estefan and Sheryl Crow.

[Tyche]

Bankruptcy generally won't wipe out court judgments, so it'd be more like

1. File for bankruptcy
2. Find out you still owe the amount
3. Try to avoid paying it another way
4. ???
5. Enjoy never being able to work a real job or have a bank account again.

Shit sucks, but that's the way that it works.

You can actually file bankruptcy after court judgements and law suits. You'd have to follow standards for the particular chapter and figure out which is best for you. It's all irrelevant though, because, in this case, the record company will never write up a writ of execution. Second, there's nothing to prevent them from getting a "real job" or having a bank account. Legally, the record company can only take a certain percentage of said person's wages. They also get exemptions to drop that percentage even further for children. If that's still not enough money to live on, then that person can file a motion to get the percentage lowered even more. Because she turned down a settlement of $3,000, I'm assuming she pretty much lives paycheck to paycheck with very little discretionary income, so this will not really effect her, as the garnishment (and it won't go that far) will take very very little.

[Darus Grey]

Its easy enough to quit your job and work under the table for the rest of your life.

Or just leave the country, the judgement won't follow you.

[Yuri-G]

Thomas-Rasset downloaded work by artists such as No Doubt, Linkin Park, Gloria Estefan and Sheryl Crow.

see now I'm at an impasse... those artists all suck, but were extremely popular at times (except for maybe Gloria Estefan), which means the $80,000 could be a fair judgment... on sales, anyway. not so much when it comes to quality.

[Pharaun]

You can actually file bankruptcy after court judgements and law suits. You'd have to follow standards for the particular chapter and figure out which is best for you. It's all irrelevant though, because, in this case, the record company will never write up a writ of execution. Second, there's nothing to prevent them from getting a "real job" or having a bank account. Legally, the record company can only take a certain percentage of said person's wages. They also get exemptions to drop that percentage even further for children. If that's still not enough money to live on, then that person can file a motion to get the percentage lowered even more. Because she turned down a settlement of $3,000, I'm assuming she pretty much lives paycheck to paycheck with very little discretionary income, so this will not really effect her, as the garnishment (and it won't go that far) will take very very little.

My whole argument was in response to the idea of just never paying it, and that there are legal avenues available to force a person to make payments. I deal with garnishments on a daily basis as part of my job. so I understand quite well the limitations on what can be taken.

[Kaisha]

There really needs to be some changes as to how charges against digital copyright infringement is involved, this is just rediculous.

It's as stupid as DRM on games, they just blame piracy, when it's the DRM itself causing the problem.

Majority of people who p2p music wouldn't have likely bought it to begin with anyways (based off my perception of the average user who knows how to P2P >.> ), so there aren't really any bloody damages to the company at all, not in excess of $80,000 per song anyway.
(highly doubt she shared 80,000 copies of each of the 24 songs going by the usual 99c price on iTunes)

[Despain]

Its whatever. I don't support illegal music downloading as well. I think the punishment's a bit harsh, but she being a mother and all, should have set an example. Though I won't lie, songs I can't find on iTunes, I download off Limewire. :/

[Dimmauk]

I just cant justify paying money for Right Said Fred's "I'm too Sexy" I'd rather steal it.

[Yuri-G]

Its whatever. I don't support illegal music downloading as well. I think the punishment's a bit harsh, but she being a mother and all, should have set an example. Though I won't lie, songs I can't find on iTunes, I download off Limewire. :/

so... you don't support illegal downloading, but you download illegally when it suits you?

at least pick one side of the fence and stick with it. you can't have your cake and eat it too, you know.

for the record, I completely support illegal downloading. most musicians make more money off of concerts anyway.

[aurik]

Shit's retarded. Even at a very optimistic $5/cd for the RIAA, and triple damages due to willful infringment, $80,000 per song would peg the actual damage at over 5000 lost sales per shared song.

Sounds just a bit outlandish.

[pohibaba]

At the end of the day she was still stealing some one else's property and so she should face a punishment for it, but this ruling is completely ridiculous. There should be a realistic cap on the amount of damages someone can face as long as they aren't reselling the songs; the $3,000 she could have settled for sounds pretty fair.

[Xfaustx]

REAL musicians make more money off of concerts anyway.

fixed.

this is possibly the dumbest case i've ever heard also. screw the record industry.

[Zilong]

I thought stanford or some other ivy league law school were going around after RIAA over this bullshit, whatever happened to that?

[Gregorio]

At the end of the day she was still stealing some one else's property and so she should face a punishment for it, but this ruling is completely ridiculous. There should be a realistic cap on the amount of damages someone can face as long as they aren't reselling the songs; the $3,000 she could have settled for sounds pretty fair.

I disagree. She didn't steal anything, really. We've all seen the picture...copying 0's and 1's leaves the original copy intact. The person who's property was "stolen" loses nothing. And before anyone says it, the artist didn't directly lose revenue from people buying the CD just because it was downloaded. Just because I'll download Right Said Fred's "I'm too Sexy" for free, doesn't mean I would pay 99 cents for it off iTunes if I had to.

[Dimmauk]

Isnt it the same thing as recording something off of the radio? Its not like she was making money off of selling the music.

[LiquidFriend]

I think this stems from several years ago, which would kind of explain the Kazaa part. This is likely nothing more than a moral victory for the RIAA so they can stroke their penis over it. The negative PR they'd receive for trying to collect the actual settlement would definitely not be worth it, when you consider how much actual cash and assets they would get.

The RIAA didn't want that much per track, but the defendant lied and pissed the jury off I guess. Either way, that amount is simply retarded. I wouldn't be required to pay that much if I went out to an actual store and was busted stealing the actual CD's.

[dannyl]

I'd like to know how they even find out she was downloading the music in the first place.

EDIT: Nevermind. Found out. Also, who uses Kazaa? D:

Idiots do. same with Limewire.

You'd be a fool to get your music from those sites. Its riddled with trojans, and big brother apparently.

[Slapper]

[pohibaba]

I disagree. She didn't steal anything, really. We've all seen the picture...copying 0's and 1's leaves the original copy intact. The person who's property was "stolen" loses nothing. And before anyone says it, the artist didn't directly lose revenue from people buying the CD just because it was downloaded. Just because I'll download Right Said Fred's "I'm too Sexy" for free, doesn't mean I would pay 99 cents for it off iTunes if I had to.

If you're not willing to pay for it then what right do you have to it? Where does this sense of entitlement come from?

[Ace-o-fire]

1,825,840,000

fuck... i'll be screwed for a long time