dslreports logo
site
 
    All Forums Hot Topics Gallery
spc

spacer




how-to block ads


Search Topic:
uniqs
251
share rss forum feed


Kristopher
Tarquin
Premium
join:2002-10-11
Tyrinaria
kudos:4

1 recommendation

Ridiculous

The cost of the verdict is ridiculously high, and only an idiot would defend it as is. And no, I don't illegally download anything, so I'm not biased towards the defendant.
--
Play DSLr Mafia: »Pub Games


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

Maybe. But she was offered a much lower settlement, she refused. She thought she could play the legal system and waste the courts time. She got what she had coming.



Kristopher
Tarquin
Premium
join:2002-10-11
Tyrinaria
kudos:4

1 recommendation

I stand by my original post.

$5K was too much. People with endless supplies of money to power the court system should not be allowed to use it to destroy someone financially just to make a point.
--
Play DSLr Mafia: »Pub Games


averagedude

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

said by Kristopher:

I stand by my original post.

$5K was too much. People with endless supplies of money to power the court system should not be allowed to use it to destroy someone financially just to make a point.

^2nd^

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

She destroyed herself. She could have paid vastly less and she didn't. Her court fees are very possibly higher than her punishment.

I can't stand it when people waste the courts time. She broke the law. If you do the crime, you pay the fine.



Kristopher
Tarquin
Premium
join:2002-10-11
Tyrinaria
kudos:4

Bullshit.

The fine was ridiculous to start with. She did the right thing in defending that stance. The prosecutors are the ones who are wasting the courts time because they have the money to try and make a point. To me, it just makes them look like the selfish greedy bastards they truly are.
--
Play DSLr Mafia: »Pub Games


silbaco
Premium
join:2009-08-03
USA

They followed the law. She didn't. They could have gone for $150k per infringement for all 1700+ songs. They didn't. If you think this has anything to do with greed, you are clueless. They spent far more than $220k on this lawsuit. Probably several times that. They won't be bringing home a profit. But people will see this and understand that the legal system favors the law which favors copyright. If you infringe and you are caught, you will pay for your crime.



Kristopher
Tarquin
Premium
join:2002-10-11
Tyrinaria
kudos:4

said by Kristopher:

The cost of the verdict is ridiculously high, and only an idiot would defend it as is.

$150K per infringement is ridiculous. $222K for 24 shared songs, ($9,250 per song) is ridiculous. $5,000 for 24 shared songs ($208 per song) is ridiculous. If you want to fine someone for this shit, come up with a cost that is reasonable to the offense. Otherwise they are exploiting the court system with their endless supply of money to prosecute and render insane monetary verdicts. All to make a point. A point that hasn't worked at all yet, except to financially ruin two people for small offenses. The punishment should fit the crime.
--
Play DSLr Mafia: »Pub Games

andre2

join:2005-08-24
Brookline, MA
reply to Kristopher

said by Kristopher:

I stand by my original post.

$5K was too much. People with endless supplies of money to power the court system should not be allowed to use it to destroy someone financially just to make a point.

I agree - just the fact that they were originally willing to settle for $5K means the actual damages couldn't be more than that. Personally, I suspect a dollar a song would be more than enough - people who go to the trouble of downloading and burning usually wouldn't have paid anyway, and it means possible free publicity for the songs, so they might actually benefit from it. (At least if they're any good, but they don't deserve to get paid if they're not.)

CXM_Splicer
Looking at the bigger picture
Premium
join:2011-08-11
NYC
kudos:2

1 recommendation

I think they know very well that the 'damages' were $0. They use the $5000 figure because it is cheaper to pay that then to put up a legal defense. Guilt/innocence is not a factor in the equation. Even the innocent people caught up in this are told by their atty that it is cheaper to just pay them off than it is to prove you are innocent. It is extortion by any reasonable view.