Record companies win music sharing trial
 

Maybe she should have known when to hold em and when to fold em. ;)

DULUTH, Minn. - The recording industry hopes $222,000 will be enough to dissuade music lovers from downloading songs from the Internet without paying for them. That's the amount a federal jury ordered a Minnesota woman to pay for sharing copyrighted music online.

Jammie Thomas, 30, a single mother from Brainerd, was ordered to pay the six record companies that sued her $9,250 for each of 24 songs they focused on in the case. They had alleged she shared 1,702 songs in all.

It was the first time one of the industry's lawsuits against individual downloaders had gone to trial. Many other defendants have settled by paying the companies a few thousand dollars, but Thomas decided she would take them on and maintained she had done nothing wrong.

"She was in tears. She's devastated," Thomas' attorney, Brian Toder, told The Associated Press. "This is a girl that lives from paycheck to paycheck, and now all of a sudden she could get a quarter of her paycheck garnished for the rest of her life.

I realize that a parent is responsible for their children, but this is nuts.

Good for the record companies. She broke the law. I don't understand why people just don't understand this. Copying music and sharing it with others is stealing.

Hah!

Now you know how I feel about your constant criticism of the military!

Shoe's on the other foot. :nanana:

:popcorn:

I agree to an extend but I still think it's overkill Eric, and NOONE is going to stop downloading music because of this

It kind of reminds me of something else....

Many years ago when I was in high school, a friend of mine was caught shoplifting from Macy's. Even though the item he was caught steeling was $30, Macy's demanded he pay them $300 or else they would prosecute him. The DA's office cooperated with them on this policy, and he paid the money to avoid prosecution. Macy's obviously figured that if they catch 10% of shoplifters and force them each to pay 10 times as much as what they shoplifted, then they would break even and thus the shoplifting problem would not result in any financial loss. I'm guessing the record companies are looking at this in a similar manor. The purpose of these suits may not be just to discourage piracy, but also to recoup some of the lost revenue.

Eric,
Not to arm wrestle, but I think the shoplifting analogy is a stretch; most
of the shrinkage comes from the pro "gangs" that rove through the malls
like locusts on the crops, imo. Some of those get caught, but the South
American gangs keep sending more.

I'm really wondering about this download stuff, (the non-license/illegal
versions). I'm not sure I have a good argument or opin, either way.
I may be ambivalent because I don't have/use Mp3/Ipod type music
and I've never downloaded a tune for free or, pay.

In the case of the "record" companies, your point is pretty well taken:
it's both...to discourage JoeSixPack, ala the IRS, and it's all about the
lost revs/money.
BR,mD

Wasn't the issue with her that she uploaded her own songs? I download songs from time to time but I have never uploaded songs from anything I have purchased?

I would agree that uploading music for others to download is the real crime. Kind of like the difference between the drug dealer and the person buying the illegal drugs from them. While both are wrong, one is certainly more wrong than the other.

Go after companies/big guys who make this possible

Not small individuals.

People who release the songs on the Internet. Not the downloaders. EVERYONE downloads. Maybe not the older generation but all teens - young adults do it.

If they didn't nobody would buy an Ipod. Nobody downloads 80GB worth of LEGAL music