“Only in Minnesota” could this happen.

I wonder how much the RIAA will pass on to ASCAP??

Here are the facts:
The accused UPLOADED 1702 songs to a P2P website in 2005 and in her first trial the plaintiff wanted to settle for $38,000 but she said no.
I not a big fan of the RIAA but she was stupid for uploading that many songs and not settling.

Shawn, I’m confused. $38k would still make it $22 per song. By Uploading, this simply means she had the songs on her hard drive and the P2P program took what was requsted. SO this is too much $$ simply for being part of a p2p program and having songs on your hard drive.

Glad this doesn’t happen in Canada

taz,
Uploading(or distributing) copyrighted material is illegal in the US,if you read the news link above the plaintiffs wanted to settle back in 2007 but the defendant said no,she also lied to a jury(perjury).
Stupid people such as the defendant get no sympathy from me.

Jason K: Thanks a lot.

Shawn: The prosecution claimed she uploaded 1702 songs, but made it simpler for their case by just trying to prove 24 very specific titles they could prove.

P2P downloading / file sharing (In 2009) is now well understood and known to be wrong. The $38K offer to settle was also wrong, and ridiculus.
It does not help their rightful position or image.

Why a jury would award this outrageous amount to the RIAA lobby for 24 songs is beyond me. Did the judge say here is the law, so the jury could only rule one way? If there ever was a time for jury nullification then this is it.  This was not justice.

OK, so the real deal behind the jury’s decision was simply that this woman was unlikable—unrepentant, lying, changing her story, and suggesting her children or ex-husband could have done it. That was according to an NPR story recently but I can’t find the link.

Ridiculous!

If i were her i would buy a laptop off ebay and sit at coffee shops stealing movies, music and for the rest of my life… just for spite.

She should make a counter offer and only pay for the good songs

Since all you guys see nothing wrong with stealing music and movies, I guess you wouldn’t have a problem with someone coming in and stealing what you’ve produced.

@as if ... I’m pretty sure no one here has suggested that. The penalty simply didn’t fit the crime.

I wonder how much it would have been if it were lossless…

I would have pinned it on the youngest kid and paid him off with candy to keep his mouth shut.

Stealing music is wrong, but so are these egregious damages.  This case is a shining example of why I have not bought a single CD or digital download released by a member label of the RIAA in over a year.  I’m not supporting these legal witch hunts with my wallet.  There is plenty of good music available on indie labels, and I support those artists by buying their music and attending their shows.

Foolish is the person who steals.
38K?  Why not? What, now that she’s caught she should be given a “bargain” price (or the going Itunes value) to pay? Where is the deterrent in that? This broad is a thief. She got caught.
Garnish her wages, take her car, grab her house.
I’m soooooooooo tired of this “argument”.
This is no different than someone stealing your credit card number and profiting from it.
Oh, except the people being harmed are companies and “rich music stars”.  Equal justice under the law folks.  Grow up America.  You want something? Pay for it.  Stealing is wrong (regardless of how “easy” the internet now makes it).