- Joined
- Jul 20, 2005
- Messages
- 20,688
- Reaction score
- 7,320
- Location
- Washington, DC
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
Woman fined $1.9 million for illegal downloads – The CNN Wire - CNN.com Blogs
This is just ridiculous. I can't even imagine what the judge was thinking.
The jury awarded it. Also, if the odds of being prosecuted for a crime are low, the punishment has to be high to have a worthwhile deterrent effect. Sucks for the person who gets caught, but it makes sense.
The jury awarded it. Also, if the odds of being prosecuted for a crime are low, the punishment has to be high to have a worthwhile deterrent effect. Sucks for the person who gets caught, but it makes sense.
No it doesn't considering the BS that is surrounding this and other File Share case. It's going ot end up at the US Supreme Court mark my words on that. They have said they are going to file an a motion for appeal on Friday.
It does not make sense. If society deems that this crime is severe enough that it needs a stronger deterrent effect, then it should prosecute the crime more often...not fine some random person $80,000 per illegal download while allowing everyone else to get off scot-free. That is just stupid and excessive. Fortunately the punishment will almost certainly be thrown out on appeal, as it should.
How do they select which person is to get caught? This is something that baffles me. I could get onto a Peer to Peer Network right now and give an IP Address to someone who has all sorts of illegal music, games, and movies.
Woman fined $1.9 million for illegal downloads – The CNN Wire - CNN.com Blogs
This is just ridiculous. I can't even imagine what the judge was thinking.
A federal jury Thursday found a 32-year-old Minnesota woman guilty of illegally downloading music from the Internet and fined her $80,000 each — a total of $1.9 million — for 24 songs.
1) We do this all the time. Littering carries a $500 fine - is that because someone littering actually costs $500, or because it's so hard to catch someone littering that you have to make the fine big to deter it?
RightinNYC said:2) "Prosecute" was a bad choice of words on my part - this is a civil trial. In civil trials, the rationale is even stronger. If they only awarded nominal damages, it would not be cost efficient for the injured party to sue and it would effectively result in a repeal of a law via nuisance.
RightinNYC said:3) What makes you say it will get thrown out on appeal?
Amendment 8 - Cruel and Unusual Punishment. Ratified 12/15/1791.
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.
Not necessarilyThe people who are prosecuted for littering usually aren't the people who throw a candy bar wrapper on the ground. They're the people who take all of the trash from their house or business and just dump it on the side of the road. And $500 does seem reasonable for that.
Not necessarily
Got a group of kids for littering once when I witnessed them throw eggs at other people's cars while in a moving vehicle.
It was the most punitive thing I could come up with, and it works, because they are littering.
How do they select which person is to get caught? This is something that baffles me. I could get onto a Peer to Peer Network right now and give an IP Address to someone who has all sorts of illegal music, games, and movies.
The people who are prosecuted for littering usually aren't the people who throw a candy bar wrapper on the ground. They're the people who take all of the trash from their house or business and just dump it on the side of the road. And $500 does seem reasonable for that.
Well that's too bad for the plaintiff if it isn't cost-effective to sue. It does not warrant such an excessive punishment.
For one thing, the 8th amendment prohibits cruel and unusual punishment. The punishment here does not fit the crime. Let's look at her crime: 24 counts of illegal music downloads, for each of which she was fined $80,000. The market value of the songs is approximately $1 each.
Hmmm.....the law says up to $80,000 per download, huh?
Some law makers need to be horsewhipped as soon as the appeals court throws out the fine.
This is a civil damages award, not a criminal fine. Some citizens need to be taught the constitution.
$500 seems reasonable for both, because the point is to deter.
RightinNYC said:Congress disagreed by passing the laws to permit such damages.
RightinNYC said:This isn't a government punishment, it's civil damages. If a company does something really egregious, the jury can award punitive damages. That doesn't violate the Eighth Amendment.
RightinNYC said:This is a civil damages award, not a criminal fine. Some citizens need to be taught the constitution.
1)
3) What makes you say it will get thrown out on appeal?
Wait, you're telling us that the company is getting the money?
And $500 would be OK for illegally downloading 24 songs as well. $1.9 million, on the other hand, is ridiculous.
Would you fine someone $1.9 million for throwing a bag of McDonald's out of their car window? After all, the point is to deter. Maybe we should skip the fines and go directly to execution.
And I guess this is where your JD and my MBA clash. If it isn't cost-effective for a company to sue, that sounds like a good rationale for NOT suing...not a good rationale for imposing ridiculous fines on the offender.
And you think illegal music downloads are "really egregious"? So egregious that they warrant a fine 80,000 times larger than the value of the songs?
Then fine her $1 per song in compensatory damages and $10 per song in punitive damages, for a total of $264.
Yes. This was a civil lawsuit between private parties.
Something that has a value of a dollar is not worth eighty thousand dollars. Thats like executing someone for going one mile over the speed limit. I hope an appeals court tosses out the fines.That is ridiculous. If you went and shop lifted from the dollar tree they wouldn't fine 80,000 for each piece of merchandise taken.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?