$1.92 million

Jury rules Minnesota woman must pay $1.92 million for illegal downloading. I would have thought a jury would be sympathetic to the mother of four and defiant to the big, bad recording industry. Not hardly. The RIAA went after her on 24 violations and got $80,000 per song. How about that.

:skep:

I don't have to worry. Down loadable MP3 files don't sound that good to me so I have none. I have down loaded some 24/96 FLAC files from HD Tracks (legally) and they sound terrific.

I personally don't down load MP3's or play them because they don't sound all that good. But I think it's crap that the fine for downloading a $1song will cost you 80K a pop. I hope the Judge has sense to throw this out. It is stealing but the punishment should fit the crime.

"The Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) and major music labels have brought suit against thousands of people for illegally downloading and sharing music, with most agreeing to settlements of between 3,000 and 5,000 dollars.

Thomas-Rasset was the first among those being sued to refuse a settlement and instead took the case to court."

So, if I read this correctly, she was given an offer to settle for a heckuva lot less, but she wanted to take it to court... twice.

She knew the potential fines up front. She shoulda folded 'em.

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php...show_article=1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 02audionoob

Jury rules Minnesota woman must pay $1.92 million for illegal downloading. I would have thought a jury would be sympathetic to the mother of four and defiant to the big, bad recording industry. Not hardly. The RIAA went after her on 24 violations and got $80,000 per song. How about that.

:skep:

---

If you look at all the info, she downloaded waaaay more than 24 songs. They just used that number to make it all easier.

Yeah must not have been a jury of her peers but a jury of musicians.

OK, so let's be realistic, how the hell is she going to come up with $1.92M (not to mention her legal fees). If she files for bankruptcy, then it's the tax-payers who will be paying out (I know, not the settlement, but pretty much the value of everything else she owns). If she goes to jail, she'll also be an even greater expense to society. I know that shouldn't be the deciding factor in any case, but this punishment is way beyond the pale.

The RIAA wanted to make an example of her, but this will likely cost them far more in PR expenses down the line. In this economy, it's hard to see them as the victims. In the end, nobody wins.


I'm waiting for the day that some brave soul who hasn't done anything wrong sues the pants off the RIAA for privacy infringement or installing a virus on his computer. That will be the day that people will be dancing in the streets (to illegally downloaded music, I hope).

So who here knows the legal consequences for her? I don't think they can take her property, garnish her pay or incarcerate her. I think they also cannot take her retirement account. So if she can't pay, she just has this judgment hanging over her...isn't that about it?

Having a judgment against you can seriously fook up your credit rating. Good luck trying to get anything on credit.