Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case

General discussion of Anime Music Videos
Locked
User avatar
godix
a disturbed member
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 12:13 am
Org Profile

Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case

Post by godix » Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:01 pm

"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.
Image

User avatar
gotenks794
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:39 pm
Org Profile

Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case

Post by gotenks794 » Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:37 pm

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.
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?
Image
MAC is a cosmetics brand. Mac is the superior computing platform. It's not an acronym.

User avatar
Vivaldi
Polemic Apologist
Joined: Sat Sep 29, 2007 9:39 am
Location: Petting mah cat..
Org Profile

Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case

Post by Vivaldi » Fri Jul 31, 2009 10:54 pm

gotenks794 wrote:
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.
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?
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.
Image
Image
<Kenzichu> HAHAHA!!
<Kenzichu> everyone died!

User avatar
Qyot27
Surreptitious fluffy bunny
Joined: Fri Aug 30, 2002 12:08 pm
Status: Creepin' between the bullfrogs
Location: St. Pete, FL
Contact:
Org Profile

Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case

Post by Qyot27 » Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:22 pm

gotenks794 wrote:
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.
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?
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.
My profile on MyAnimeList | Quasistatic Regret: yeah, yeah, I finally got a blog

User avatar
The Origonal Head Hunter
The Propheteer
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 12:21 am
Status: Hooked on a Feeling
Location: State of Denial
Org Profile

Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case

Post by The Origonal Head Hunter » Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:40 pm

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.
And lets not ignore the fact that downloading music isn't actually theft, since the company doesn't actually lose their property.
RonnieDaking wrote:i like my anime like I like my women, from japan and speaking english
Image
Boredom.

User avatar
Minimoto
Joined: Thu Oct 16, 2008 9:24 pm
Status: Trying to Live
Location: Wherever I smell good food!
Org Profile

Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case

Post by Minimoto » Fri Jul 31, 2009 11:50 pm

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.
Image
Robert F. Young wrote:Day Before Yesterday I saw a rabbit, yesterday a deer, today you.

User avatar
gotenks794
Joined: Mon Jul 30, 2007 4:39 pm
Org Profile

Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case

Post by gotenks794 » Sat Aug 01, 2009 12:38 am

So where are the people getting in trouble for uploading it? Isn't that worse?
Image
MAC is a cosmetics brand. Mac is the superior computing platform. It's not an acronym.

User avatar
Chiikaboom
memes
Joined: Wed Jun 23, 2004 5:01 pm
Status: Eliminating the male species
Contact:
Org Profile

Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case

Post by Chiikaboom » Sat Aug 01, 2009 1:35 am

gotenks794 wrote:So where are the people getting in trouble for uploading it? Isn't that worse?
x2

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? :|
Image ImageImage

User avatar
Castor Troy
Ryan Molina, A.C.E
Joined: Tue Jan 16, 2001 8:45 pm
Status: Retired from AMVs
Location: California
Contact:
Org Profile

Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case

Post by Castor Troy » Sat Aug 01, 2009 2:07 am

Which programs are these people using to upload and download?
"You're ignoring everything, except what you want to hear.." - jbone

User avatar
godix
a disturbed member
Joined: Sat Aug 03, 2002 12:13 am
Org Profile

Re: Jury awards $675K in Boston music downloading case

Post by godix » Sat Aug 01, 2009 3:55 am

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?
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.

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.
Image

Locked

Return to “General AMV”