Supreme court denies appeal of woman who owes RIAA $222,000
- Thread starter Poke
- Start date
- Latest activity Latest activity:
- Replies 33
- Views 5K
She chose to reject the $3500 settlement offer and go to court. Two juries ruled against her. She was stupid to not settle in the first place.
Her lawyers and backers probably figured it would be a way to get the law ruled unconstitutional because of the excessive penalties. She will just declare bankruptcy and will be out of the bill. She was probably selected since she would not have a lot to lose if she lost the case.
This suit is questionable as to whether a crime was committed. ( I don't know) If the suit is for damages caused by a criminal violation, I don't think the suit award is dischargeable in bankruptcy. But if there was no criminal violation then it might be dischargeable. The bankruptcy judge would have to rule on it. If she has any property at all and she hasn't settled the payment with the plaintiff, then at any time in the future, she sells an asset the plaintiff can still collect. They would get a charging order to tie up all her assets, even those exempt from the bankruptcy.
I lived close by when this all started and the duluth paper and tv covered it extensively. She thumbed her nose at them and basically asked them to put the hammer to her and they did.
She got what she asked for.
Sent from my S3 using SatelliteGuys
She got what she asked for.
Sent from my S3 using SatelliteGuys
It's sad. She tried to do what we teach our children to do. Stand up to bullies, but the bullies won in this case.
I don't teach my children to steal.
Neither do I, however the RIAA and MPAA are trying to make crimes out of things that are currently legal. Trying to turn the clock back on fair use, getting the law against unlocking cell phones reinstated, trying to make skipping commercials illegal, etc. Thankfully, common sense prevailed today, and the First Sale doctrine was upheld by the Supreme Court. Facts are facts. The RIAA and MPAA are bullies.
Didn't she download and share music that she hadn't purchased? That sounds illegal to me, but I don't know much about the law.
That might be true,but shouldn't the fine be commensurate with the actual damages?
Sent from my Samsung Galaxy Note 2 using Tapatalk 2.x
Hmmmm.... I think I got this confused with a different case. I was thinking about the one with the lady that got a threatening letter from the RIAA about sharing songs because her IP supposedly matched some database they had collected, however she didn't actually download anything. She went to court thinking she was innocent, so there's nothing they could do to her. She lost and had to pay huge damages due to the RIAA's shotgun approach of threatening first, investigating later. However, looking at this one, it's still excessive. There's no reason for people who pirate music to be treated more harshly than a rapist. I don't support piracy, nor do I engage in it. However, the bullying that is done by the RIAA and MPAA is disgusting. Oh, and I think you took my quote out of it's context a bit. I was talking about their bullying by bringing up various things they are trying to pull right now.
As I understand it, they offered to settle for $3500 in the beginning. She insisted that they take her to court so she put herself at the mercy of a jury. Once they ruled against her the jury was in a position to award damages and court costs to the RIAA. Sorry, but she's an idiot. She showed she is an idiot when she posted copyrighted material for free download. She further proved she is an idiot when she refused to settle for a fairly reasonable amount.
Other than destroying the woman's financial life what has this actually done? Nothing. Feel free to take exception to my statement that she needs the $220,000 a lot more than the RIAA and the record companies do. Money that she likely doesn't have.
Did they demonstrate actual losses of revenue on these songs? If not, that's what is wrong here.
That wasn't my intent. Since I agree with most of your post, I only highlighted the portion I didn't agree with.
You mean have the punishment fit the crime? What a ridiculous idea!
It doesn't seem like it does, does it? If what I read is true, some of the amount is to cover attorney fees and court costs.
Well, it isn't hard to show that file sharing has seriously damaged the recording industry, and since she was convicted of file sharing, the financial damage part follows.
Not arguing whether their original model was fair to consumers or artists. That is a different discussion, but the woman clearly broke the law by copying and distributing copyrighted material.
I agree that she's broken the law, but how is this civil crime this severe??? I find the award unjust. Then again, I don't find the Supreme Court above reproach any more.
Sent from my ASUS Transformer Pad TF700T using Tapatalk HD
She is the one that made this a supreme court case. The attorney fees are what makes the amount so high.
