dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
20
share rss forum feed


celeritypc
For Lucky Best Wash, Use Mr. Sparkle
Premium
join:2004-05-15
Caldwell, NJ
reply to FFH

Re: Can she pay $222,000? And what if she can't?

said by FFH:

Can she pay $222,000? And what if she can't? More court cases to collect?

She files bankruptcy and the judgement gets tossed. Granted, she will have the bankruptcy follow her for 7 years but will recover fairly quickly from it.


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Yea, hope the musical enjoyment was worth it. DOWNLOAD LEGALLY


Network Guy
Premium
join:2000-08-25
New York
kudos:2
reply to celeritypc

I don't think an administrative judgment can be dissolved into a chapter 7. More like this person will have a permanent wage garnishment for the rest of her fiscal life. And for 24 songs, that's fucked up.



DaSneaky1D
what's up
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to ITALIAN926

This was in 2005.... the legal music download scene wasn't really well established, nor was the concept of "I really don't own the music I purchased on this CD" a generally accepted concept.

Not to drag this out, but the music industry has successfully changed public thought to believe it's better to lease monthly access to a wealth of music, store music files purchased online and have legal access to them as long as you remain a customer of "said" service (unless you knowingly download to back them up).

Boy, how times have changed...



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Napster was shut down in 2001, and legal means of downloading like Itunes were released and widespread shortly after.

Wow, Im getting all these songs for free !!

Now was her opinion " The best things in life are free" , "if its Free it for Me", or was it " if its too good to be true, it probably is"

1700 downloaded songs illegally, give me a break


axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC

1 recommendation

reply to ITALIAN926

You're the kind of person who tells Rosa Parks "Hope sitting in the front seat was worth it!" after she goes to jail.



ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2

1 recommendation

Yea well, Rosa Parks PAID HER FARE on that bus, this woman did not pay her FARE.



Snakeoil
Ignore Button. The coward's feature.
Premium
join:2000-08-05
Mentor, OH
kudos:1
reply to celeritypc

said by celeritypc:

said by FFH:

Can she pay $222,000? And what if she can't? More court cases to collect?

She files bankruptcy and the judgement gets tossed. Granted, she will have the bankruptcy follow her for 7 years but will recover fairly quickly from it.

Bah, why even do that?
She can refuse to pay it, do her jail time for refusing a court order [I think she'd get jail time for refusing to pay].
But bottom line is this:
Thanks to the RIAA and the court system, we now have a new welfare recipient on our hands.
If she fails to make the welfare rolls, she could get a low income job, that just covers her bills. They [the courts/RIAA] can not take anything away from her that she needs to live on. Meaning if she needs 30k a year to survive, then that should be the income level she seeks.
I have a friend that got divorced, he quit his 100k a year job, and went to McD's. She had already taken all the savings and other items, left him with just the shirt on his back and child support payments. By working McD's he was able to dodge child support, because it would have been a hardship for him based on his current income level. So he got away not paying child support.
Note: Now that the kids are over 18, and the ex is in a study relationship, he left McD's and returned to making a better income.

So I think that would work in this case as well.

--
Is a person a failure for doing nothing? Or is he a failure for trying, and not succeeding at what he is attempting to do? What did you fail at today?.


ArrayList
netbus developer
Premium
join:2005-03-19
Evanston, IL
reply to ITALIAN926

1700 songs should never equal $222k



Xioden
Premium
join:2008-06-10
Monticello, NY
kudos:1
reply to ITALIAN926

Paid or not she broke the law all the same. I mean just think, that white person Rosa Parks didn't give her seat up for could have fallen on the way to the back of the bus causing long term injury and a loss of their way of life! I mean who cares how likely any of that is to happen, it's too hard to prove damages anyway, so $222,000 judgement in favor of the plaintiff against Rosa Parks too because, well... because!



toby
Troy Mcclure

join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA
reply to ITALIAN926

said by ITALIAN926:

Yea well, Rosa Parks PAID HER FARE on that bus, this woman did not pay her FARE.

Have you ever watched tv clips on Youtube?

Most of those are illegal.


ITALIAN926

join:2003-08-16
kudos:2
Reviews:
·Verizon FiOS

Youtube removes any copyrighted material almost instantly when reported. Is there a legal difference between STREAMING, and DOWNLOADING? I would assume that streaming isnt categorized as copying, downloading/saving them certainly is.
This woman downloaded 1200 mp3's, and probably burned dozens of CDs


Skippy25

join:2000-09-13
Hazelwood, MO
reply to Snakeoil

First, I dont believe this as the court would use 3-5 years of previous income or potential income (if they are under employing themselves) to decide this. Any competent lawyer would certainly take this approach.

Second, your friend is an idiot for "doing" that to his children. Child support is there to help give them adequate housing by both parents and is based on % of income and time child spends with the parent and other expenses (day care and medical coverage). Your friend, by being vindictive to his EX only hurts his children and I see why the woman left him.


axus

join:2001-06-18
Washington, DC
reply to ITALIAN926

Even worse, she allowed others to ride the bus FOR FREE, thus depriving the good Montgomery County bus service of paying fares, which may or may not have added up to $222,000 worth of damages.


Papageno

join:2011-01-26
Portland, OR
reply to Snakeoil

Your friend's a real prince. Talk about cutting off your nose to spite your face (or in this case, your ex). He could have made certain his kids were adequately provided for, made enough income to build up his retirement savings again etc. but no, it was more important to stick it to his ex.



PapaMidnight

join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD

1 recommendation

reply to ITALIAN926

said by ITALIAN926:

Youtube removes any copyrighted material almost instantly when reported. Is there a legal difference between STREAMING, and DOWNLOADING? I would assume that streaming isnt categorized as copying, downloading/saving them certainly is.
This woman downloaded 1200 mp3's, and probably burned dozens of CDs

By streaming, you technically are downloading.
Also, she is being punished for 24 songs.
Let us also be clear on this: She is not being explicitly punished for downloading. She is being punished for implicitly "making available" 24 songs for an unidentifiable number of persons.


toby
Troy Mcclure

join:2001-11-13
Seattle, WA
reply to ITALIAN926

said by ITALIAN926:

Youtube removes any copyrighted material almost instantly when reported. Is there a legal difference between STREAMING, and DOWNLOADING? I would assume that streaming isnt categorized as copying, downloading/saving them certainly is.
This woman downloaded 1200 mp3's, and probably burned dozens of CDs

Streaming = downloading. How can it not be?

Youtube removes some material, not all.

Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to Snakeoil

said by Snakeoil:

She can refuse to pay it, do her jail time for refusing a court order [I think she'd get jail time for refusing to pay].

We don't have debtor's prisons in the United States. You don't go to jail for debts owed to a private corporation or individual, even if you disregard judgments. The only debts you go to jail for are child/spousal support and taxes, and that's only in the event that you refuse to make a good faith effort to repay them.

Civil judgments are barely worth the paper they're printed on. There are so many creative and legal ways to get around them that they're almost worthless. OJ Simpson hasn't paid a dime of the civil judgment levied against him. Monies parked in retirement accounts are completely exempt, as is your home in many states, your pension, many 'heirloom' possessions (i.e., your wedding wing can't be taken to satisfy a judgment), firearms up to a certain value, social security income, disability/unemployment income, etc, etc, etc.

Kearnstd
Space Elf
Premium
join:2002-01-22
Mullica Hill, NJ
kudos:1
reply to ArrayList

it should equal $1700 because a song is only worth that if based off iTunes.
--
[65 Arcanist]Filan(High Elf) Zone: Broadband Reports


averagedude

join:2002-01-30
San Diego, CA
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
reply to Crookshanks

said by Crookshanks:

said by Snakeoil:

She can refuse to pay it, do her jail time for refusing a court order [I think she'd get jail time for refusing to pay].

We don't have debtor's prisons in the United States. You don't go to jail for debts owed to a private corporation or individual, even if you disregard judgments. The only debts you go to jail for are child/spousal support and taxes, and that's only in the event that you refuse to make a good faith effort to repay them.

Civil judgments are barely worth the paper they're printed on. There are so many creative and legal ways to get around them that they're almost worthless. OJ Simpson hasn't paid a dime of the civil judgment levied against him. Monies parked in retirement accounts are completely exempt, as is your home in many states, your pension, many 'heirloom' possessions (i.e., your wedding wing can't be taken to satisfy a judgment), firearms up to a certain value, social security income, disability/unemployment income, etc, etc, etc.

That is a misconception about "debtors prison".
The judge will "order" the money to be paid.
When the person does not pay the money that person will be "held in contempt" (AKA Jailed) until such time as the money can be repaid. The problem is that being in jail makes it impossible to pay back the "ordered" debt thus furthering the "contempt" order thus more jail time - - - wash rinse repeat.

I am not going to list the cases as they can be googled.


chamberc
Premium
join:2008-08-05
Irving, TX
reply to Crookshanks

said by Crookshanks:

said by Snakeoil:

She can refuse to pay it, do her jail time for refusing a court order [I think she'd get jail time for refusing to pay].

We don't have debtor's prisons in the United States.

Sad but true. It would fix a lot of problems if we could throw people in jail for being on welfare for too long, or for failure to pay bills.


Rambo76098

join:2003-02-21
Columbus, OH

Oh yeah, take them from getting payments they have to apply for, to forcibly covering their housing, meals, etc.

More than willing to bet a year of welfare costs less than a year of jail.


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to averagedude

You're wrong, at least with regards to civil (e.g., non support/non taxes) debts.

The Judge can not "order" you to pay per say. They can garnish your wages. They can levy your bank account and take non-exempt monies. In the extreme example they can send the Sheriff/US Marshals to your house to seize non-exempt property and put it up for auction, though this almost never happens for civil debts. They can not simply order you to pay using whatever means are necessary, because much property and many monies (i.e., money received from disability, social security, retirement distributions) are exempt from seizure to satisfy judgments.

Please, link to a single case in the United States where somebody went to jail for an inability/unwillingness to pay a civil judgment. You can go to jail for lying about your assets or income. You can go to jail for lying on a debtors examination form. You do not go to jail/get held in contempt for an inability or even an unwillingness to pay.

RIAA will not see a dime of this money, irrespective of whether or not the woman files for bankruptcy. Bankruptcy may not even wipe away the judgment, depending on how hard RIAA fights it, but even if she is stuck with the judgment they will have a very hard time enforcing it. Move to a state where payroll garnishments aren't legal (Texas is one such state), live without a bank account, and don't own any non-exempt property. Park any money you wish to invest into a IRA or other exempt asset. Purchase a house and keep less equity in it than your state's homestead exemption. Don't own a car that's worth more than your state's automobile exemption. There are limitless legal ways to dodge a civil judgment, and for that matter a lot of illegal/spiteful ways (purposefully damaging your property to lower its value) to do the same that are very hard to prove.

Of course, the point here wasn't to collect money. It was to generate a big scary headline that deters people from pirating media. Whether or not this headline was worth the legal fees they paid is open to debate, but they did accomplish their goal of obtaining said headline.


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to chamberc

said by chamberc:

Sad but true. It would fix a lot of problems if we could throw people in jail for being on welfare for too long, or for failure to pay bills.

Bankruptcy as a legal procedure goes all the way back to the beginning of the Republic. It encourages entrepreneurs to take risks, because the worst case scenario from failure is a black mark on your credit report for ten years. It allows for an out from unpredictable life events (uninsured medical expenses) that would otherwise destroy your life.

Saying we should throw people in jail for not paying their bills is absurd.

silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA
reply to toby

Technically they are the same, legally they are not.


averagedude

join:2002-01-30
San Diego, CA
Reviews:
·Cox HSI
reply to chamberc

said by chamberc:

said by Crookshanks:

said by Snakeoil:

She can refuse to pay it, do her jail time for refusing a court order [I think she'd get jail time for refusing to pay].

We don't have debtor's prisons in the United States.

Sad but true. It would fix a lot of problems if we could throw people in jail for being on welfare for too long, or for failure to pay bills.

How would "throw(ing) people in jail for being on welfare for too long" fix any problem?
It would seem to me welfare is alot cheaper than jail when the tax payer footing the bill?
Putting a non-violent and non-criminal in jail for a debt only hurts taxpayers.
With your idea, we the tax payers would be paying (most likely "private" jails AKA big company's) for housing, food, and medical care VS. money spent on local private housing, local grocery stores for food, and local doctors for medical needs.
Only big business wins if everyone is jailed.

There are many issues on why people are on welfare for extended times. For example, you would be for throwing US Military Veterans in jail because they had the misfortune to have traumatic brain injuries or have had their limbs blown off and will need welfare for the rest of their lives? Yea, its a little more complicated than just 144 characters.

averagedude

join:2002-01-30
San Diego, CA
Reviews:
·Cox HSI

1 edit
reply to Crookshanks

said by Crookshanks:

You're wrong, at least with regards to civil (e.g., non support/non taxes) debts.

...

Please, link to a single case in the United States where somebody went to jail for an inability/unwillingness to pay a civil judgment. You can go to jail for lying about your assets or income. You can go to jail for lying on a debtors examination form. You do not go to jail/get held in contempt for an inability or even an unwillingness to pay.

...

First hit on google search and there are plenty more with better stories:
»business.time.com/2012/08/28/len···l-debts/
Know in the industry as "body attachments".

We could split hairs all day long but it really comes down to sleazy the RIAA wants to get on its "collection" and how much of a point they want to make.

But the RIAA needs to watch out, if they get too sleazy, then there might be some backlash that might undo the point they are trying to make.



DaSneaky1D
what's up
Premium,MVM
join:2001-03-29
The Lou
Reviews:
·Charter
reply to ITALIAN926

iTunes may have been available in 2001, but it wasn't until DRM free mp3 files were sold that things started to change. This is less about the woman in question, as it is the mindset change for everyone...

"At the 2009 Macworld Conference & Expo, it was announced that the iTunes Music Store would be DRM-free, with all songs DRM-free by April 2009."


Crookshanks

join:2008-02-04
Binghamton, NY
reply to averagedude

Being arrested for failure to appear is not the same thing as being arrested for failing to pay a judgment you can't afford. Nice try though.


dra6o0n

join:2011-08-15
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·ITalkBB
reply to toby

Technically isn't.
Streaming is a whole different segment than downloading.

The way you look at it, Streaming is a session, which you download, and upload data.

Youtube is a site that streams video to you, you don't literally download something to save and use it, it's temporary data that is used and erased after the user browse elsewhere.