Jury Gets Music Downloading Case in Minnesota

Status
Not open for further replies.
Wow, almost $2 million from somebody who will most likely never even see $2 million in a lifetime.. Yet when the RIAA breaks the law, people just get a $10 check in the mail.... If they can get insane judgments against individuals for just trading a few songs, why can't the law work the other way and give a million per person when the shoe is on the other foot?
 
UrielDagda said:
Wow, almost $2 million from somebody who will most likely never even see $2 million in a lifetime.. Yet when the RIAA breaks the law, people just get a $10 check in the mail.... If they can get insane judgments against individuals for just trading a few songs, why can't the law work the other way and give a million per person when the shoe is on the other foot?
Click to expand...

RIAA pays well to those that treat them well.
 
Surely if the crime justified the $1.92M fine then the RIAA should qualify for some extra money to cover their pain and suffering too...
 
far out. I dont understand how they come up with these numbers??? It would be cheaper just to hold up a music shop with a shotgun and load everything into a truck
 
Having not followed this case, I was struck by the burden of proof being that people had to download songs she shared. While I believe that the jury completely ignored that part, it seems odd that she should be held, in effect, responsible for what other people chose to do with the available songs. Like she held a gun to their heads and said download this or die.
 
UrielDagda said:
Wow, almost $2 million from somebody who will most likely never even see $2 million in a lifetime.. Yet when the RIAA breaks the law, people just get a $10 check in the mail.... If they can get insane judgments against individuals for just trading a few songs, why can't the law work the other way and give a million per person when the shoe is on the other foot?
Click to expand...

The judicial system simply doesn't work. How can you jail people for possession of miniscule amounts of a controlled substance (which many would argue should not be controlled in the first place) and then allow something like this to happen? It's ridiculous. The punishment isn't even scaled to the crime. These people have used their vast financial resources to put the stress and associated difficulties of debt over this woman's head for the rest of her life when the harm she caused was negligible. I understand they're making an example out of her but let's be pragmatic for a moment. People will see this story and comment, "Oh, that's a shame" or perhaps, more vehemently, "She got what she deserved for breaking clearly established law" but at the end of the day those same bystanders still have easy, free, and illegal access to music at their fingertips. This excessive litigation will correct nothing but torment the target family. Simply preposterous.
 
FUCK the RIAA. Fuck them ALL. They are nothing but a bunch of money-hungry, greedy unethical bastards.
 
$80,000 per fucking song??? WHAT THE FUCK! Man I can totally dig the cost of what you stole, maybe potential revenue losses or some "don't fucking do that again" penalty but $80k? God fucking damnit.

This is a major precedent and will make many other people simply roll over and pay the $5000 extortion letters they send out. If anything, she can declare bankruptcy and not pay a dime to them.
 
I think alot of people are missing the point here. I guarantee you the RIAA is as surprised with the amount of this judgement just like everyone else... THE JURY made the decision to acess this large a PUNITIVE fine... They did it cause Tomas-Rassert was a lying scheming witch with a capital B..... RIAA had nothing to do with that aspect of the case. I am pretty sure if Rassert hadnt come off as a lying crook that did all she could to hide the evidence of her crimes the award would have been far more reasonable. The RIAA has been trying to work a settlement with her since BEFORE the first court case and they offered her $5000 which was about $208 a song. Sure thats a tad high but the whole point is its supposed to be a punishment.
 
And yet, we can buy a song on itunes for 99 cents. It doesn't make any sense at all... the world has gone bonkers! The RIAA is so full of shit their eyes are brown.
 
There needs to be some sort of outcry on this. I hope some media outlets pick this up.... ohh wait....
 
Again the RIAA has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AMMOUNT OF THIS JUDGEMENT...... If you want to blame someone you need to blame the legislature and the courts. The lady broke the law and while I agree this whole RIAA/copyright deal is bullshit its still a violation of the law. As such RIAA had nothing to do with the penalty imposed. If you dont want to do the time then dont do the crime.
 
kodan said:
Again the RIAA has NOTHING TO DO WITH THE AMMOUNT OF THIS JUDGEMENT...... If you want to blame someone you need to blame the legislature and the courts. The lady broke the law and while I agree this whole RIAA/copyright deal is bullshit its still a violation of the law. As such RIAA had nothing to do with the penalty imposed. If you dont want to do the time then dont do the crime.
Click to expand...

Then the Courts in the states are bonkers, a woman downloaded 24 freaking songs and shared them... now she's screwed for the rest of her life, having to pay an obscene fine. This isn't going to stop the issue. This is capitalism at it's worse, hell... I wouldn't be surprised if some musical artists (definitely not metallica... hehe) and supported her. Yes a song is intellectual property, but it isn't worth someones life, and that is what that fine is.
 
wheres the edit?

"some musical artists got behind her and supported her" is what it's supposed to say :cool:
 
Even worse than breaking the law this lady hid the fact that she did so. Lied about things and destroyed/covered up evidence. Then when offered a fairly light penalty settlement she decides to be all "super goodie goodie wooo is me I didnt do anything wrong". Well she got caught out and honestly I think they should have levied the full 150,000 a song since Tomas-Rassert has been such a retard about this and has esentailly wasted everyones time and money,both hers,the courts, and the RIAA's. In the end no one wins cause a crook couldnt be responsible for her actions... THATS THE SHAME IN ALL THIS, WE CONTINUE TO OBLITERATE THE CONCEPT OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
 
Funny thing is, im sure no one who loses in court actually pays the fines. I mean come on people who are sharing music dont have the means to pay almost a 2 million dollar fine, Riaa is wasting their time in courts. Is there a way that the public can find out if anyone has even paid them a dime?
 
kodan said:
Even worse than breaking the law this lady hid the fact that she did so. Lied about things and destroyed/covered up evidence. Then when offered a fairly light penalty settlement she decides to be all "super goodie goodie wooo is me I didnt do anything wrong". Well she got caught out and honestly I think they should have levied the full 150,000 a song since Tomas-Rassert has been such a retard about this and has esentailly wasted everyones time and money,both hers,the courts, and the RIAA's. In the end no one wins cause a crook couldnt be responsible for her actions... THATS THE SHAME IN ALL THIS, WE CONTINUE TO OBLITERATE THE CONCEPT OF PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY.
Click to expand...

What was the orig settlement?
 
Origianlly the RIAA offered here a $5000 settlement BEFORE it went to court. They offered the SAME amount AFTER the last trial. I am pretty sure they will offer her another settlement now as well(in fact they have said that already). No clue what they will over amount wise this go round but the lady has had in my mind two reasonable offers. In the end the lady is a tard and has wasted millions of dollars and not just the RIAA's.
 
I mean come on guys... In the end the lady was a CROOK...... She broke the law.... She stole someones property(sure only intellectual but its still not her property) and now that its time to pay the piper shes all goodie goodie I didnt do anything wrong yet I purposely lied and hid and destroyed evidence that proved I was a CROOK. I dont get you people that can defend a crook. Sure copyright laws are FUBAR but the RIAA is NOT the ones at fault... Blame our lawmakers and court system but not the RIAA. I agree this whole situation is rediculous but Tomas-Rassert isnt the heroic person we all think she is. Shes just a lying criminal that doesnt want to pay the consequences.
 
I don't believe anyone's saying she didn't download music... everyone's saying the amount is ridiculous, and even if it isn't the RIAA's fault... well, it's still the RIAA's fault... defending them is like defending Satan himself :p
 
I actually APPLAUD the jury for doing this... They sent a pretty clear message... Dont lie to us and you shoulda kept your mouth shut and now that we KNOW you were a scumbag we are going to punish you worse. The lady sunk herself in all and frankly I have NO sympathy whatsoever for this lady. I do have SOME sympathy for the little old men/women that have been targeted cause little Billy downloaded stuff while at their house. They arent the ones intentionally violating the law and then trying to hide it all when caught.
 
Just because there is an advantage does not mean that you should take it.
Especially when taking it makes you worse than the original offender.
Anyone want a home loan that you can never pay back?
 
Citizen86 said:
I don't believe anyone's saying she didn't download music... everyone's saying the amount is ridiculous, and even if it isn't the RIAA's fault... well, it's still the RIAA's fault... defending them is like defending Satan himself :p
Click to expand...

If you arent willing to pay the cost or consequences for breaking the law then I would suggest you NOT break the law. Penalties like this one are MEANT to be excessive. Why you ask? Purely so the next idiot in line will MAYBE consider the seriousness of the potential ramifications of their act. Yeah the RIAA is Satan as you put it but then again people that steal music/movies/whatever arent much better either. Crooks are crooks anyway you slice it.
 
it's likely that neither side is expecting money to change hands

the RIAA may be bastards but they aren't stupid enough to think she can pay 1.92M and she probably isn't expecting to have to somehow come up with 1.92M

even if the RIAA loses money because of their attorney fees, they have certainly won a psychological victory by making the fine so ridiculously high that some people might think twice before pirating music
 
Usquabach said:
even if the RIAA loses money because of their attorney fees, they have certainly won a psychological victory by making the fine so ridiculously high that some people might think twice before pirating music
Click to expand...

The RIAA attourneys have already said they dont expect to get any money out of this UNLESS she accepts whatever new settlement they propose... The stupid tard Tomas-Rasset is going to continue to fight this though costing the courts and US the tax payers more money. Seriously guys who the hell do you all think is going to end up paying for all this... Sure as hell wont be the RIAA or Tomas-Rassert.
 
kodan said:
If you arent willing to pay the cost or consequences for breaking the law then I would suggest you NOT break the law. Penalties like this one are MEANT to be excessive. Why you ask? Purely so the next idiot in line will MAYBE consider the seriousness of the potential ramifications of their act. Yeah the RIAA is Satan as you put it but then again people that steal music/movies/whatever arent much better either. Crooks are crooks anyway you slice it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, but you keep defending the law again, like its always right. The truth is the law isn't always right, and this is a perfect example.

There are countless artists that support the downloading of music, the record industry is turning into a dinosaur, and the RIAA is bringing it on even quicker.
 
Citizen86 said:
Wow, way to win people back to buying their music....
Click to expand...

JimmiG said:
Whether or not you agree with current copyright laws, those kinds of fines are just disgusting for such a petty crime. It's way more than a murderer has to pay the relatives of the victim in damages...
Click to expand...

SamuraiInBlack said:
Guess this means I won't be buying my music anymore.
Click to expand...


I stopped buying music when napster went down when Lars from Metallica freaked out. Funny, I got hooked on Metallica even more so due to napster, and went out and bought EVERY FUCKING ALBUM.

Fuck you Lars. All my music is pretty much from my cd collection I backed up.

When I was an avid user of napster, I was buying a TON of cd's. 3-12 a month easy. DL a few tracks, get into it, neat! Buy the cd. At that time cd's where $10-$12 a pop, sometimes $8.99 at best buy. Now, I think the last time I looked, $16+...

Video games, I remember when you could spend 30-40$ and get a GOOD game. There where shareware versions out there, and demos all over. You could "try before you buy". No matter what game you bought, there was replay value, and chances are, you where happy with it, I remember playing the same game for 13+hrs. Now, I can't find a game to get me to like it that much.

I haven't seen a demo on a game I want to play in ages. I sure as hell am not going to spend $40+ on a game to find out it sucks! Gimme back my demos!

Movies, Hollywood, seriously, why not make an attempt to make a good movie? Make it AUTHENTIC! Don't use 18yr olds to play 14yr olds. Don't drop random romance into an action movie. Don't over-use special effects. Don't expect people to pay so much for new releases. I used to snap up movies when you could find what you wanted for under $15. Not any more. So fake, not exciting...


*sigh*.
 
sc0tty8 said:
I stopped buying music when napster went down when Lars from Metallica freaked out. Funny, I got hooked on Metallica even more so due to napster, and went out and bought EVERY FUCKING ALBUM.

Fuck you Lars. All my music is pretty much from my cd collection I backed up.

When I was an avid user of napster, I was buying a TON of cd's. 3-12 a month easy. DL a few tracks, get into it, neat! Buy the cd. At that time cd's where $10-$12 a pop, sometimes $8.99 at best buy. Now, I think the last time I looked, $16+...

Video games, I remember when you could spend 30-40$ and get a GOOD game. There where shareware versions out there, and demos all over. You could "try before you buy". No matter what game you bought, there was replay value, and chances are, you where happy with it, I remember playing the same game for 13+hrs. Now, I can't find a game to get me to like it that much.

I haven't seen a demo on a game I want to play in ages. I sure as hell am not going to spend $40+ on a game to find out it sucks! Gimme back my demos!

Movies, Hollywood, seriously, why not make an attempt to make a good movie? Make it AUTHENTIC! Don't use 18yr olds to play 14yr olds. Don't drop random romance into an action movie. Don't over-use special effects. Don't expect people to pay so much for new releases. I used to snap up movies when you could find what you wanted for under $15. Not any more. So fake, not exciting...


*sigh*.
Click to expand...

Hear hear!

I used to get PC gamer for the LOADED demo disk, man was that the shit! I miss those days, playing settlers 2 demo for days on end while i saved up to buy it :D
 
I just can't get myself too worked up over this. At one time, I recall thinking the preponderance of evidence wasn't against her, but I have to say that articles posted here in the last few days make me think she was almost certainly the person who uploaded the songs.

I would have loved for someone to win, but it turns out she wasn't a very good defendant.

The industry is saying they're still willing to settle the case....for how much, I have no idea. Didn't her last lawyer quit in the last few months? I bet it was because he found out she'd lied to him/her and they knew the case was no longer winnable.
 
You are right I am defending the law. I agree with you in this case the law is flawed but thats another matter for another discussion since as of now this is the law we have and it should be applied fairly to everyone(another problem in our country since for the most part celebrities are immune to the law but again lets not go there right this second). Once you realize a law is bogus you push to get it changed you dont just go out and flaunt the law and break it at every opportunity. There is a procedure for doing these things.

Thats beside the point this lady broke the law. She WAS offered a far better settlement than the law would have given(she was offered $5k or roughly $208 a song versus the $750-150,000 a song the law allowed for).

While I dont think putting 24 songs out for download is that huge a deal and doesnt deserve jail time I think the ultimate in irony and poetic justice should happen to this dumb broad. The state/government should file the very OBVIOUS and SERIOUS crimianl charges against her that have come to light.
Not only did this dumb broad violate copyright law she just irrefutably in another court case showed thats shes not only committed Perjury shes obstructed justice and shes tampered with/destroyed evidence. Those are some pretty serious charges IMHO. Would love to see her get some jail time now for being a dumbass and costing us all so much money since you can damn well guarntee the only people that will be paying for this is John Q. Public the taxpayers.
 
kodan said:
The RIAA attourneys have already said they dont expect to get any money out of this UNLESS she accepts whatever new settlement they propose... The stupid tard Tomas-Rasset is going to continue to fight this though costing the courts and US the tax payers more money. Seriously guys who the hell do you all think is going to end up paying for all this... Sure as hell wont be the RIAA or Tomas-Rassert.
Click to expand...

Umm, actually it will be RIAA. You think their attorneys work free? Try 400-600 dollars per hour. How does using the existing court system cost the tax payers any more money than the court budgets that already exist? We pay for the running of our courts in yearly budgets that are generally fixed...the existence of 1 or 100 cases doesn't make those fixed costs go up. Judges and bailiffs don't get paid extra than we would have paid them otherwise for this trial....the ones losing money on this are RIAA, because they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a pyrrhic victory.
 
kodan said:
You are right I am defending the law. I agree with you in this case the law is flawed but thats another matter for another discussion since as of now this is the law we have and it should be applied fairly to everyone(another problem in our country since for the most part celebrities are immune to the law but again lets not go there right this second). Once you realize a law is bogus you push to get it changed you dont just go out and flaunt the law and break it at every opportunity. There is a procedure for doing these things.

Thats beside the point this lady broke the law. She WAS offered a far better settlement than the law would have given(she was offered $5k or roughly $208 a song versus the $750-150,000 a song the law allowed for).

While I dont think putting 24 songs out for download is that huge a deal and doesnt deserve jail time I think the ultimate in irony and poetic justice should happen to this dumb broad. The state/government should file the very OBVIOUS and SERIOUS crimianl charges against her that have come to light.
Not only did this dumb broad violate copyright law she just irrefutably in another court case showed thats shes not only committed Perjury shes obstructed justice and shes tampered with/destroyed evidence. Those are some pretty serious charges IMHO. Would love to see her get some jail time now for being a dumbass and costing us all so much money since you can damn well guarntee the only people that will be paying for this is John Q. Public the taxpayers.
Click to expand...

You obviously have no idea what perjury, obstruction, or criminal law in general are. What taxpayer money did she cost you? See my previous response for how wrong you are.
 
Technoob said:
Umm, actually it will be RIAA. You think their attorneys work free? Try 400-600 dollars per hour. How does using the existing court system cost the tax payers any more money than the court budgets that already exist? We pay for the running of our courts in yearly budgets that are generally fixed...the existence of 1 or 100 cases doesn't make those fixed costs go up. Judges and bailiffs don't get paid extra than we would have paid them otherwise for this trial....the ones losing money on this are RIAA, because they are spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to get a pyrrhic victory.
Click to expand...

Are you really this naive?!?! Who the heck do you think gives the RIAA its funding? Ultimately its anyone that buys music. So when prices continue to rise and DRM gets more restrictive etc.etc. etc. who the heck do think pays the price for that?

And to say that since the courts have a yearly budget and this is what they do so it doesnt cost them either is retarded at the minimum. Who pays the judges salary? Taxpayers do thats who. If the judges were doing this rediculous wrangling with a now proven criminal they would have time energy and resources to ohhhh I dont know maybe go after some more serious criminals maybe? Thats a cost to us the taxpayers again.

And they RIAA didnt get a pyrrhic victory at the minimum they just set another precedent in their favor. Granted they have realized that suing their own "potential" customers (I say potential since most pirates really dont pay for their music anyway) is pretty damn stupid BUT they have now scored A SECOND WIN (remember they one the first case but due to judicial errors it was sent to retrial although she was going to appeal anyway) and that just makes the next one all the easier if they resume suing people.

Come on people I know its cool to buck the man and that no one really thinks its that big a deal to steal music.... In the end though it is still stealing and it did take money out of someones mouth (not everyone that works for the RIAA or its members is a scumbag). Sure they arent entitled to the huge awards seen in some of these cases but they should be able to recover damages just like you or me or anyone else in this country is entitled to under the law as written.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top