There you go:
http://www.news.com.au/adelaidenow/story/0,22606,22535734-912,00.html?from=public_rss

I've been reading the various stories about this around the web and think its absolutely rediculous. It's obvious that she broke the law, she does deserve a fine, but the punishment should be preportionate to the crime. 220 Grand for 24 mp3's is more than excessive. I feel sorry for her and her child, there is no way that a single mom is going to be able to pay that back, she is going to end up losing virtually everything and her child is going to pay the price. This verdict is not justice.

Just a question:

Why are they suing her for a ridiculous amount of money? Is not a song about $0.99? Then why are they suing her $9250 per song? Are they trying to regain all the money "they've lost" through everyone sharing songs by getting the one person to pay for it?

Another question:

Why didn't she settle in the first place? Would it have been possible for her to delete those songs, and purchase the songs she "downloaded" normally?

Jim is right. How the hell is that Justice? The kid has a fruitful upbringing to look forward to.
"Tonight for dinner we are having one potato each".

Charge her a relative fine - such as $5000 - enough to teach her not to do it again. Or ban her from ever being able to have access to the internet....that would teach her

I think I read somewhere that the max. fine per offense is $30000 .I'd say she never expected to actually be found guilty and hence didn't settle.

So anyone here reconsidering their torrent activities?

She's fined for copyright infringement. They could have put her up for well over $10,000 per song but no judge/jury would ever allow that. She'll probably end up filing bankruptcy. Hopefully this is enough for politicians to see how out of control the **AA are.

thats what the jury awarded not what they sued her for. She also claims that wasnt here username but was also found to have switched her hdd a week or so before they confiscated it. wonder where that hdd is....???

I think it's a scare scam? A total act. To scare ppl off. All carefully orchestrated by
the government, media and music industry. It's the biggest pile of s**te i've ever seen!

Tam-the-Bam said:
If it is a "false-flag" so to speak, it may have a much different effect than they planned. Details are coming out that tend to support the perception that something is "off" about this case.

The various spin-off discussions that IP address <> Identity are numerous, and that means more people (and defense attorneys) are becoming more educated. That means future lawsuits will become more difficult and more expensive for the **AA to pursue.

It should be noted that **AA is also now trying to demand a percentage of their signed artists' earnings from concerts, and other non-label endorsed activities. As I understand it, a number of currently signed artists are not happy with that, since they often make much more money from those than from the CD sales. (one source says an artist gets about US$2 from each CD sold)

I've also read that the number of "unsigned" artists is growing, thanks to the internet's ability to market and sell one's work at low cost.

I predict that the **AA will respond to that threat by initiating infringement suits against the artists directly...alleging they "stole" songs (or parts of songs) from other artists that are under label. The intent will be to scare the artists instead of the customers...get them all to sign to a label, or quit independent distribution.

john albrich said:
Artists, in general, hate publishers but see it as a necessity. Think Prince with his name changed to a symbol just to rebel against his publisher. Also note that most industrial artists of the 90's into the 2000's all hate publishers and some have been cited (Nine Inch Nails) to release an album to the P2P networks just because their publisher refused to release it.

I sense a war about to break out between consumers, artists, and publishers. The **AA has always been a tool of the publishers and frankly, people are getting sick of it. Online might be the way forward. The lower budget games are already being sold this way because, being quite obvious, the software publishers aren't much better than the music publishers. They just don't have enough money to form an organization like the **AAs. I wouldn't say it is beyond them to do such a thing within the decade if things do not change.

pirating's wrong mmkay

btw totally love the censoring of the RIAA

We're doing that because it also includes the MPAA.

One reason some IP owners go after suspected pirates really aggressively, is because the law gives them little choice, and of course their attorneys bring it to their attention.

If you don't take actions against those you believe have stolen your IP (copyrights, patents, trademarks, etc) you can lose your right to control it. It can end up in the public domain.


However, there is nothing in the law that says you have to be brutally heavy-handed when you mete out punishment...as in making an example out of a mother, or a 14 year old, or someone who honestly just didn't understand the laws (and BTW some congress-persons don't even understand the laws)

leastcmplicated said:

Yes, but there's no need to be so heavy-handed in dealing out punishment. Slap her wrist hard, I agree, but landing her with $220 000 is more like hitting her in the face with a sledgehammer...

This apparently isn't over yet...

So a music sharing mom gets hit for $220,000, but the guys implicated in destroying over a billion dollars in equity each, each walk away with multi-million dollar golden parachutes after the sub-prime loan fiasco, which isn't over...the commercial property meltdown is coming up!
Something is FU...ummm, messed up here.
I pay for my music and videos, as well as all of my software, and it grinds my jaws when I get a pop-up, or can't install or play purchaced products because I've done it several times on the same system.
DRM does not slow down or stop file sharing.
DRM just punishes those that don't torrent the files, because there are so many different ways of publishing stripped files.
I could get every OS, Application, and song (around 5000) I've payed for, some multiple times for free, and never hit a PtP network, or provide a download stream that was trackable!
This is the equivilent of taking someone down for originating a mix tape. If she does not materially profit from the distribution, the impact and her liability should be adjusted to her actual gain; so, 26 songs at $0.99 each, leads to a finding of about $25.74. At least this is how Software manufacturers handle their liability in the SLAs.

Ultimately, software, audio, and video industries are going to have to learn to embrace the pirate scene. It has been around for over two decades and there really is no stopping it--there is only trying and failing. Until they figure out that out, they'll keep driving customers away because, 9/10 (especially software), the pirate copy runs with fewer issues than the retail, DRM infested copy. Audio and video is getting just about as bad.

2 Decades? I think you may be a little off.
Back in the mid-70s I was making party tapes on a reel-to-real TEAC, and I learned how to do it from my uncle, who'd been doing it since the late 50s.
I guess I just come from a family of hardened criminals...

Oops, I was only taking software piracy into account. Audio and video piracy dates back to at least when they were released. It wouldn't surprise me if there were audio pirates back in the stone age.

FordGT90Concept said:

There is truely nothing new under the Sun!