LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With QuoteSo how is he supposed to come up with this money?
Thomas verdict: willful infringement, $1.92 million penalty - Ars Technica
Fudzilla - RIAA wins high profile piracy case again
Yep, you gotta love the American court system. $80k per song was decided to be the amount she would owe the RIAA in damages. Its also important to note that this is the ONLY case that has gone to trial that they have won in the US so far. The only reason they won is because Jammie is such an idiot and likely a terrible liar too. The ridiculous part is they are using commercial infringement laws against users that aren't making a dime off of any of it.
Heres the 1.92million dollar playlist:
RIAA Trial Produces Playlist of the Century | Threat Level | Wired.com
Feel free to burn some 'civil disobedience' cds with those tracks on them and spread them around if you want... thats what I am going to do.
So how is he supposed to come up with this money?
(☞ﾟ∀ﾟ)☞☜(ﾟ∀ﾟ☜)
RUN AWAY RUN AWAY RUN AWAY RUN AWAY RUN AWAY RUN AWAY RUN AWAY
He won't. He will never be able to pay it off in his entire life.
The RIAA is trying to prove a point, they don't care about how many fans they hurt who would but can't afford to buy music. A lot of these same fans go to concerts, buy band shirts and do other stuff to support the bands or artists they are fans of. The RIAA will never get this money because no normal person can come up with a sum like that.
Originally Posted by ston3rpimp69
I do believe the motive of this would be scaring other users out of downloading moreso than getting rid of eager entrepreneurs.
It would be nice if they could more clearly define this part of the law to prevent such abuse but lets be honest, the RIAA is so far up Washingtons ass they are likely to make the law worse.
Interesting. You don't think lawsuits of [record companies vs. persons] would increase once the laws become more explicit?
Well I am talking about redefining the laws on the books to define commercial infringement as strictly commercial and (indirectly) making personal file sharing a case law subject. With that dynamic changed the RIAA wouldn't have a whole lot left to stand on and they would have to start focusing on the commercial pirates like they used to. Whats more likely to happen is, all the while smiling, our congressmen and women redefine the laws on the books to apply to civil infringement and make file sharing blatantly illegal (FYI Biden and Obama both have had heavy Hollywood, RIAA, and MPAA financial backing as well as a good hunk of other politicians).
Last edited by DSG : 06-19-2009 at 11:00 PM
I'm curious, to what extents would file sharing be limited? P2P? Lending someone a CD? Sharing photos with a family member?
The whole matter is rather depressing.
That is ridiculous!
**** the RIAA.
That sounds a little ridiculous. Isn't there something in the bill of rights that says the punishment has to fit the crime?
Yeah, no cruel and unusual punishment. This is both cruel and unusual :(
[Polie]: I was having sex when you im'd me
[Polie]: "SC2"
[Polie]: I was like "bitch get off"
[707]: rofl
WE POP BITCHEZ WIT R GATZ CLUB:
LCS, 707, BB
filing for bankruptcy sucks
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
