The stupidity of the music industry...

[Mini-Me]

As proof of how stupid the music industry and the courts really can be of late, is the news of the Minneapolis (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_tec_music_downloading) woman fined 1.92 million dollars for sharing 24 songs - eighty grand per song - how pathetic.

If they are gonna fine people, they need to be realistic about the fines - the music industry, recording companies, laywers and courts all need a reality check. There is zero point, in fining someone 1.92 million bucks, when the person being fined, has no hope of EVER paying that amount.

An action like that, is self-defeating, surely...

[Fruss Tray Ted]

When they offer to accept a settlement of $3000 to $5000, who's the stupid one now?!?!?

They are just making spectacles out of the ones in the limelight (press) to serve as an example so others wont do it.

Am I standing up for the MIAA or RIAA? Absolutely NOT!!! But you can't fight something or someone on pure principle when they have you by the ****'s, they have money and you don't.

And here's the kicker. The woman is a mother of 4, most likely not well off (as she said herself) so the state probably provided her with free legal assistance. Not only do they end up with 'weak' attorneys (who are willing to work for the meager wages the state pays) but it was state money being wasted in a fruitless battle.

Who do you actually think is going to pay for all the lawyer fees, court fees etc? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[Mini-Me]

...sounds like the lawyers and courts make money from the taxpayer, for a case that will never be settled as decided by the verdict...

I always said the legal system in any developed country(including NZ) exists to suck massive amounts of money from taxpayers, often for no justice at all.

Justice is a relative term - relative to how much money you have.
If you have bags of cash, you can buy justice through the courts via an expensive lawyer, and/or settlements.
If you have no money, you get bad representation, and a negative verdict.

Basically, as far as I can see, Justice is only available to those who can afford it - literally...

[Whyzman]

...sounds like the lawyers and courts make money from the taxpayer, for a case that will never be settled as decided by the verdict...

I always said the legal system in any developed country(including NZ) exists to suck massive amounts of money from taxpayers, often for no justice at all.

Justice is a relative term - relative to how much money you have.
If you have bags of cash, you can buy justice through the courts via an expensive lawyer, and/or settlements.
If you have no money, you get bad representation, and a negative verdict.

Basically, as far as I can see, Justice is only available to those who can afford it - literally...Mini, you are right on...on all accounts. Judges are attorneys, most who've been in a firm before sitting on the bench. Favoritism?? Maybe... A "Good Ole Boy's Club???" Justice is a relative term - relative to how much money you have. Oh yeah...

[pop pop]

http://yro.slashdot.org/story/09/06/19/1550232/19-Million-Award-In-Thomas-Case-Raises-Constitutional-Questions

DECISION RAISES CONSTITUTIONAL ISSUES

Constitutional issues? A scholar might agree. But many in government, including many sitting and past justices of the SCOTUS, stopped considering the Constitution decades ago.

Justice is only available to those who can afford it

No. A decision in your favor is available if you can afford it. Not necessarily "justice".

[Whyzman]

A decision in your favor is available if you can afford it. Not necessarily "justice".Good point pop pop. I guess the word justice should have quotation marks around it giving it that variable/questionable interpretation... "A decision in your favor" is quote apropos! ;)

[Whyzman]

Oh yeah, and where's the ACLU when they really have something they could sink their teeth into??

[jlreich]

I just read an article on this right before I came here. Ridiculous. :mad:

$80,000 per song? Wow! :mad: And by law the jury could have taken up to $120,000 per incident. :(

I don't use file sharing (illegal or legal) and I don't allow it in my house. Not so much because of the legal or moral implications but rather because it is ridden with malware.

The RIAA has long been in need a reality check. This really makes me just want to go out and start file sharing just to piss them off. :mad:

[tommy]

And to top it off, many of the politicians are lawyers (particularly on the national level) so the possibility of tort reform is practically nil!

[SufferWell1396]

The RIAA is a ridiculous organization.
File sharing of copyrighted songs that should be paid for is illegal, and by all means, it should be.
But maybe they should take a reality check, treating VIRTUAL crimes just as REAL LIFE crimes.
take for instance, I'm 16, if i were to steal a candy bar from a grocery store, and got caught, one of two things would happen:
1. Fork up the cash for the candy bar, and be asked to leave, probably banned from the store.
2. Cops are called, I get a call home saying i stole the bar and that i'm in custody, then they'd go pick me up.
it's a slap on the wrist, either way. I shouldn't have to be forced to pay 80 grand for a chocolate bar that cost a dollar...

On another note, if anyone here had heard of the band Valient Thorr, my friend and his friend saw them a few years back.
the lead singer, Valient, they met back stage.
they were talking, and Valient said to my friend Paddy "so... did you download our album illegally?" Paddy said "No." because he hadn't.
Valient then asked John, his friend, if he had, John said "Yeah....".
All Valient said was "Hey man, it's alright, as long as you support the music".
even most musicians don't see it as a big deal, if they're doing it for the music that is. if they're doing it for the money, well.. i just hate bands like that.

The RIAA doesn't cause justice, they just cause superfluous charges for people who commit meager offences.

[johnny_quest]

who the hell is on the jury and how could they find in RIAA's favor? ughh