Prometheus
Master
If you want to discuss the morality of copying music, please use another thread, like this one: https://www.indianagunowners.com/forums/showthread.php?p=2186944#post2186944
Thanks for not hijacking this thread.
Music Fan Owes $675,000 For Illegal Downloads, Court Rules | Fox News
Appeals court rules overturns reduction in fines by lower court of $67,500 fine and rules $675,000 in fines will stand and be reinstated.
Keep in mind this student only downloaded the music for personal use and they were unable to prove he ever re-shared any of the music he downloaded.
The American "justice" system hard at work protecting you and I.
edited to add----
The point of this thread is the misapplication of laws, out of date laws and more specifically does the punishment fit the crime?
In a civil suit, the 'injured party' could claim actual loss of revenue as well recover damages for court costs and perhaps try and claim some punitive damages.
I'm throwing out an arbitrary number here, but lets say he downloaded 4,000 songs. Someone said they go for $1.00 on Itunes (or similar), true BUT it wasn't Itunes who was selling it, when you take away Itunes cut, the actual damages to the party was not more than 50 cents per song.
$2,000 in actual damages for the 4,000 songs plus legal fees and perhaps punitive damages.
$2,000 in damages + $73,000 in legal fees (wild guess but the RIAA has put up some big high priced names/firms) = $75,000.
Does $600,000 'punitive' seem reasonable based on $2,000 in actual damages?
That certainly sounds like "unreasonable" to me.
Again, I'm basing the damages on 4,000 songs as that's about the max anyone has been pinched for. Even if it was 10,000 songs, we'd still be at $5,000 in damages and then have $597,000 as the 'fine'.
Thanks for not hijacking this thread.
Music Fan Owes $675,000 For Illegal Downloads, Court Rules | Fox News
Appeals court rules overturns reduction in fines by lower court of $67,500 fine and rules $675,000 in fines will stand and be reinstated.
Keep in mind this student only downloaded the music for personal use and they were unable to prove he ever re-shared any of the music he downloaded.
The American "justice" system hard at work protecting you and I.
edited to add----
The point of this thread is the misapplication of laws, out of date laws and more specifically does the punishment fit the crime?
In a civil suit, the 'injured party' could claim actual loss of revenue as well recover damages for court costs and perhaps try and claim some punitive damages.
I'm throwing out an arbitrary number here, but lets say he downloaded 4,000 songs. Someone said they go for $1.00 on Itunes (or similar), true BUT it wasn't Itunes who was selling it, when you take away Itunes cut, the actual damages to the party was not more than 50 cents per song.
$2,000 in actual damages for the 4,000 songs plus legal fees and perhaps punitive damages.
$2,000 in damages + $73,000 in legal fees (wild guess but the RIAA has put up some big high priced names/firms) = $75,000.
Does $600,000 'punitive' seem reasonable based on $2,000 in actual damages?
That certainly sounds like "unreasonable" to me.
Again, I'm basing the damages on 4,000 songs as that's about the max anyone has been pinched for. Even if it was 10,000 songs, we'd still be at $5,000 in damages and then have $597,000 as the 'fine'.
Last edited: