Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case
- godix
- a disturbed member
- Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 12:13 am
Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case
"If the value of the stolen property is $300 or less then the theft conviction is Class A Misdemeanor which carries a possible sentence of up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500 . . . if the value of the property was more than $300 but not more than $10,000, the theft conviction is a Class 3 Felony which carries a possible sentence of up to 5 years in a state penitentiary and/or a fine of up to $25,000."
People shouldn't be outraged because downloading a song shouldn't be illegal or something, people should be outraged because if I broke into their home and stole their shit I would face a lesser punishment than if I downloaded a single song. As the quote above (which is IL law, but most states have roughly the same level of punishment) I am not exaggerating in the slightest here. I honestly could go get less of a punishment for stealing from Best Buy in real life than I would for 'stealing' from the RIAA online.
I haven't been following the cases all that closely, the blatant way the industry has bought 'justice' depresses me too much, but last I heard the woman fined millions was possibly going to file an appeal saying the punishment was so excessive to the crime that it constituted a violation of her Constitutional rights (cruel and unusual punishment and all that). I'd be interested in seeing how that one turns out if she actually did that.
People shouldn't be outraged because downloading a song shouldn't be illegal or something, people should be outraged because if I broke into their home and stole their shit I would face a lesser punishment than if I downloaded a single song. As the quote above (which is IL law, but most states have roughly the same level of punishment) I am not exaggerating in the slightest here. I honestly could go get less of a punishment for stealing from Best Buy in real life than I would for 'stealing' from the RIAA online.
I haven't been following the cases all that closely, the blatant way the industry has bought 'justice' depresses me too much, but last I heard the woman fined millions was possibly going to file an appeal saying the punishment was so excessive to the crime that it constituted a violation of her Constitutional rights (cruel and unusual punishment and all that). I'd be interested in seeing how that one turns out if she actually did that.
- gotenks794
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:39 pm
Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case
Wait, so they were saying that the woman who got fined millions for supposedly downloading 8 songs committed a theft in which the property stolen was more than $10,000? Or is that information just for like theft theft and not like downloading music theft?godix wrote:"If the value of the stolen property is $300 or less then the theft conviction is Class A Misdemeanor which carries a possible sentence of up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500 . . . if the value of the property was more than $300 but not more than $10,000, the theft conviction is a Class 3 Felony which carries a possible sentence of up to 5 years in a state penitentiary and/or a fine of up to $25,000."
People shouldn't be outraged because downloading a song shouldn't be illegal or something, people should be outraged because if I broke into their home and stole their shit I would face a lesser punishment than if I downloaded a single song. As the quote above (which is IL law, but most states have roughly the same level of punishment) I am not exaggerating in the slightest here. I honestly could go get less of a punishment for stealing from Best Buy in real life than I would for 'stealing' from the RIAA online.
I haven't been following the cases all that closely, the blatant way the industry has bought 'justice' depresses me too much, but last I heard the woman fined millions was possibly going to file an appeal saying the punishment was so excessive to the crime that it constituted a violation of her Constitutional rights (cruel and unusual punishment and all that). I'd be interested in seeing how that one turns out if she actually did that.
- Vivaldi
- Polemic Apologist
- Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:39 am
- Location: Petting mah cat..
Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case
IIRC, when she was charged the value was cited as $80,000 per song. At least that's what she ended up paying, I believe there were additional fines because she plead not guilty.gotenks794 wrote:Wait, so they were saying that the woman who got fined millions for supposedly downloading 8 songs committed a theft in which the property stolen was more than $10,000? Or is that information just for like theft theft and not like downloading music theft?godix wrote:"If the value of the stolen property is $300 or less then the theft conviction is Class A Misdemeanor which carries a possible sentence of up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500 . . . if the value of the property was more than $300 but not more than $10,000, the theft conviction is a Class 3 Felony which carries a possible sentence of up to 5 years in a state penitentiary and/or a fine of up to $25,000."
People shouldn't be outraged because downloading a song shouldn't be illegal or something, people should be outraged because if I broke into their home and stole their shit I would face a lesser punishment than if I downloaded a single song. As the quote above (which is IL law, but most states have roughly the same level of punishment) I am not exaggerating in the slightest here. I honestly could go get less of a punishment for stealing from Best Buy in real life than I would for 'stealing' from the RIAA online.
I haven't been following the cases all that closely, the blatant way the industry has bought 'justice' depresses me too much, but last I heard the woman fined millions was possibly going to file an appeal saying the punishment was so excessive to the crime that it constituted a violation of her Constitutional rights (cruel and unusual punishment and all that). I'd be interested in seeing how that one turns out if she actually did that.
- Qyot27
- Surreptitious fluffy bunny
- Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 12:08 pm
- Status: Creepin' between the bullfrogs
- Location: St. Pete, FL
- Contact:
Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case
No, it was a comparison that points out how utterly absurd copyright infringement charges are compared to actual theft of property. In shorter terms, the law sees it as this:gotenks794 wrote:Wait, so they were saying that the woman who got fined millions for supposedly downloading 8 songs committed a theft in which the property stolen was more than $10,000? Or is that information just for like theft theft and not like downloading music theft?godix wrote:"If the value of the stolen property is $300 or less then the theft conviction is Class A Misdemeanor which carries a possible sentence of up to one year in jail and a fine of up to $2,500 . . . if the value of the property was more than $300 but not more than $10,000, the theft conviction is a Class 3 Felony which carries a possible sentence of up to 5 years in a state penitentiary and/or a fine of up to $25,000."
People shouldn't be outraged because downloading a song shouldn't be illegal or something, people should be outraged because if I broke into their home and stole their shit I would face a lesser punishment than if I downloaded a single song. As the quote above (which is IL law, but most states have roughly the same level of punishment) I am not exaggerating in the slightest here. I honestly could go get less of a punishment for stealing from Best Buy in real life than I would for 'stealing' from the RIAA online.
I haven't been following the cases all that closely, the blatant way the industry has bought 'justice' depresses me too much, but last I heard the woman fined millions was possibly going to file an appeal saying the punishment was so excessive to the crime that it constituted a violation of her Constitutional rights (cruel and unusual punishment and all that). I'd be interested in seeing how that one turns out if she actually did that.
Copyright infringement > Grand theft
The average person, on the other hand, sees it as exactly the opposite, because theft is tangible. It's sort of like the comparison that you would get a harsher sentence for downloading music than you would for committing sexual assault, which is a really good tactic for showing just how screwed up the system is.
My profile on MyAnimeList | Quasistatic Regret: yeah, yeah, I finally got a blog
- The Origonal Head Hunter
- The Propheteer
- Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:21 am
- Status: Hooked on a Feeling
- Location: State of Denial
Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case
And lets not ignore the fact that downloading music isn't actually theft, since the company doesn't actually lose their property.Qyot27 wrote: No, it was a comparison that points out how utterly absurd copyright infringement charges are compared to actual theft of property. In shorter terms, the law sees it as this:
Copyright infringement > Grand theft
The average person, on the other hand, sees it as exactly the opposite, because theft is tangible. It's sort of like the comparison that you would get a harsher sentence for downloading music than you would for committing sexual assault, which is a really good tactic for showing just how screwed up the system is.
- Minimoto
- Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:24 pm
- Status: Trying to Live
- Location: Wherever I smell good food!
Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case
Well this is just another page in the "Awesomeness Of Our Government" I mean I could write a whole damn book on other awesome government actions and laws.
- gotenks794
- Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:39 pm
Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case
So where are the people getting in trouble for uploading it? Isn't that worse?
- Chiikaboom
- memes
- Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 5:01 pm
- Status: Eliminating the male species
- Contact:
Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case
x2gotenks794 wrote:So where are the people getting in trouble for uploading it? Isn't that worse?
get rid of the people uploading all the shet and then the downloaders wont even be able to download it in the first place.
im still confused as to why they fined someone who only downloaded 30 songs, in comparison to the other people who literally download thousands every day?

- Castor Troy
- Ryan Molina, A.C.E
- Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2001 8:45 pm
- Status: Retired from AMVs
- Location: California
- Contact:
Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case
Which programs are these people using to upload and download?
"You're ignoring everything, except what you want to hear.." - jbone
- godix
- a disturbed member
- Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 12:13 am
Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case
No. The law I was referencing is about theft. As in actually taking a physical object which does not belong to you. There are notable differences between it and copyright infringement, the most notable being theft is a criminal matter while copyright is a civil issue. Which is why theft CAN land you in jail while copyright violation can not, but with the way the justice system works theft is unlikely to actually result in jail time unless you're a repeat offender, stole a LOT, or used a weapon during the theft. Still, 30 songs is about 3 cds so it's a pretty fair comparison to look at what the punishment for swiping 3 CDs from a store is compared to sharing 30 songs.gotenks794 wrote:Wait, so they were saying that the woman who got fined millions for supposedly downloading 8 songs committed a theft in which the property stolen was more than $10,000? Or is that information just for like theft theft and not like downloading music theft?
As for punishing uploaders rather than downloaders, I'm pretty sure that's actually what's going on. P2P users do both uploading and downloading. Last I heard the way the RIAA proves it's case is they have someone try downloading a song from you. If they're able to successfully get even part of it (which with P2P they will) then they sue. I'm pretty sure the media is just being lazy and somewhat incorrect in saying it was downloading the songs that the guy was sued over.