I agree! no wonder my limewire said it is going to court or something like that. geeze. But if you think about it no one would get virues anymore. YAY

dee: do yourself and your computer a favor and find a legitimate music downloader. Limewire will destroy your computer! If you down load it on on computer, every computer in that network will get it.

You're ridiculous.

So if someone shoplifts then they should just be charged the amount of the items? If there is no fine what would be the incentive to not break the law? We could all just go take what we want... why not give it a try if we will only have to ultimately pay for the cost of the items if we get caught? I'm not saying 1.5 million is reasonable, but that is how the criminal justice system works. You punish those who break the law to deter others from doing it. Pretty simple, isn't it?

Sorry to see you bought the "pitiful single mom" card. She broke the law and is now trying to use her kids to get out of it. That's beyond pitiful (downright disgusting, actually) but it doesn't make her immune to the law.

It doesn't matter if she is a single mom or some pimple faced teenager... there is no way in the world that fine is reasonable. She will probably end up filing bankruptcy and the music industry won't see a dime anyway. I think everyone has illegally downloaded music or copied a DVD at some point. The question is why are they making an example out of her? Was she downloading songs by the thousands? Was she selling it to make a profit? Doubtful.

The real damage is done by those who upload the music. I can see a stiff fine for the one who downloads copyrighted material; maybe even $100 per as you have to make it unattractive to take the chance. But the uploader might upload to thousands of people. There's your real criminal.

If you want to upload to or download from "friends" make sure they are friends, indeed, and not on a public site!

And this is why the "Digital Millinium Copyright Act" should be repealed -!

The DMCA doesn't even actually cover or protect "copyright" itself, but enables publishers to have free market reign to make lots of money off of it's musicians and rent music instead of sell it. This is nothing more than stealing with a piece of paper.

Don't forget these are the same people who sued a little girl for a massive amount of money too.

The courts should throw this travesty out, and review the laws that allow such a gross imbalance in our justice system. I agreee 100% that it is defintly unconstitutional and without a doubt ignores the original intent of copyrights to protect artist from profiteering abuse by publishers.

Sorry, I have no sympathy for this woman. What she did was illegal and amounts to theft.

So, if she wanted to be a thief, she could've stolen food for her kids. Even that I could see. Instead, she's now using them as pawns to excuse her thievery of music.

Outrageous. Those kids are better off in the wild--and as far away from her as they can get.

That much for 24 songs?

Outrageous!

The amounts of these fines are ridiculous!! These vultures are just going after the easy prey. Why dont they just sue the shareware companies that make it possible for these crimes to take place. They are the ones who should be paying the millions in fines.

Burr: this is nothing like shoplifting! the free music sites are everywhere! if its SOooO illegal - get rid of them! stupid rockstars make too much as it is. what the F do they need more money for - hookers booze and drugs right?

And they've already made an example out of someone... Sean Parker... you remember Napster, right?

Sorry Burr...she didn't just use the songs, she shared and gave them away. They are NOT hers, and the warnings on doing this are EVERYWHERE. Why do people think that artists, whether music or other, should just give things away? Another issue here... broke freeloaders, usually on welfare or other public dole, doing just what they want because they know they'll never pay. If she can't pay, then she should begin to...for the rest of her life, a certain monthly amount taken directly from her welfare check, or other! If you don't like the 'corporate' music industry, then take some lessons and PLAY YOUR OWN!!

If she downloaded, Ina-Ga-Da-Da-Vida, she should go straight to jail; criminal.

None of you every used a casset tape to record your favorite song from the radio when you were younger? Kind of the same concept here. Those of us who used the casset tapes to record got music with out paying for it. There wasn't this much outrage about it back then.

And people wonder why I still buy my music.

It could happen to you, then what. You're f*&%ed is what.

Some people are taking this as big corporation going against poor single mom. The recording industry is defending the copyrights of artists themselves. She had the opportunity to settle for less than $4000 and she turned it down. Now three trials later she has cost the county she lives in, the recording industry, and herself thousands in legal fees. She willfully stole property. She violated copyright law. Should a bootlegger on the street selling copies of movies, if caught, just pay for the price of the movies he sold? NO, he should be jailed and fined extensively cause he stole property. Music is property, taking something that is not yours is stealing. That is why we have laws for this. You break the law willfully then be willing to pay the consequences.

My question is what is different from downloading a bunch of songs from the net when you can copy those same songs off the radio? I've recorded way more songs off the radio and put to disk then I ever have from the net. Stuff like this reminds me of the time when vcr's first came out and the movie and tv industry tried like heck to get them outlawed because you could record copywrited broadcast. That went to the supreme court where the industry lost its case I really see no difference between the radio or net.

Brian she might not qualify for bankruptcy- there's a debt limit.

That is why I no longer buy music or down load music except by local artist at their performances. No money going to the music industry from me. BY the way, i have bought over 1000 cd's in the past.

Thanks Laura :)

Rembrasha-

Have you ever published anything? Has anyone ever paid to read or listen to your brilliance?

How about you stop STEALING and pay for our art?

That's why I use Rhapsody, all I want to listen for $130.00 per year can't beat that .... I would say fair would be twice the value and line those people up and clean house that would be thousands of people paying double .... But 1.5 million is ridicules ......

For every song you buy online less than one penny goes to the artist... Less than a @!$%#ing PENNY!

One group wrote an expose on it they got 13,000 downloads on itunes for .99 a peice in one month. Total to the band 124.oo to split 4 ways PLUS they had to give their manager 10 off the top... Yeah who is the real thief again?

@Richie- Can you get Rhaposdy on your Ipod? or what i am trying to say can you get the songs downloaded to your ipod? Because 130.00 is not bad at all. :)

Brian...You are wrong. Not everyone does it. I have not pirated movies or downloaded music that I don't pay for. It is a quality called integrity. It goes hand in hand with a quality called respect.

If someone produces something; music, movies, art etc with a copy write that belongs to them until they sell it. Obviously there are people who have no respect for Artists or those who produce. They feel entitled to do what they wish with another persons property. I find that sad and a disturbing fact of our society.

This woman actually said:

"It's not a fair law," she said. "In my eyes, it's legalized extortion."

This is out of the mouth of a convicted thief. She obviously wasn't too worried about fair while she was stealing. Now she is going to get all righto us.

Let her file bankruptcy. She can sort it out in her own time and her own way. Maybe she will learn that if she acts in a fair manner bad things won't happen.

Those of you who support a fine should do some research on RIAA and its sister company SoundExchange. They are not fighting for the aritists to get paid, they are collecting royalties and holding them and if they are not contacted by the aritsts after 3 years, they keep the royalties. I have tried to contact them myself, they do not answer any type of communication whatsoever; the only way to get them is to go to a severly low staffed office. They do have a team of lawyers and lobbyists though to make and enforce their ridiculous adendumns to the copyright law. They need to be exposed for the scam organization they are....

Burr-959636, So tell us all how many songs you have downloaded off the internet for free???? LOL.

she knew it was illegal. she set a very bad example for the kids she is so concerned about. if its $1 per tune on itunes she should have gone there. she figured she could steal it for free. only feels bad about getting caught. make her pay.

This is all BS. First, unless she was downloading unreleased music, the music has already been in the public domain via radio, cable or satellite broadcasts. Second, if she was keeping the music for herself(accept the file sharing network where no one pays) she could have just as easily recorded these songs from public sources. This is just music companies and major artists that are trying to wring every dime they can from the public. Soon there will be legislation before congress to put a user fee or tax on public radio stations for the music the record companies used to pay them to play. This isn't something I made up, there is actual pending legislation for just this purpose and the majority of the money will go to the music companies the majority of which are owned by overseas interests. If they wish to increase their sales and profits, try bringing the cost of a CD down from $20 to $10. The materials and media are no more expensive then old fashion vinyl that used to sell for $5 an album. As long as the woman wasn't using it to profit from another artists work then she should be able to down load and keep whatever she wants especially if it has been on the radio, or television.

Longhair...you said it so very well. Thank you.

Anyone that is stupid enough to listen to or down load that garbage called music should have to pay,why dosen't she down load something that these low lifed politicians and CEO,S are dowing to dumb the people down,that garbage is just what they want you to pay attention to and stay un informed.

Burr made a great point...if the punishment isn't worth more than the original value, then why not steal everything. Worst that happens is you end up paying what you would have in the first place.

Further, this woman probably actually UPLOADED those 24 songs to several people. That is usually who the record companies go after. If that is the case, it cost them more than 24 dollars. It cost them a dollar for everytime she uploaded each of the songs, who knows how many times.

Her uploading songs she doesn't own would be the equivalent of walking down the street and selling peoples' cars that you see on the side of the road (or just giving them away to other people). Just because they are accessible to you and maybe you don't agree with the price the dealers charge for them, doesn't mean you have the right to sell them yourself.

This woman should pay $20,000 and call herself lucky no one else is suing her; i.e. other musicians, song writers, producers, etc. This kind of stuff goes on all the time. If a person wants a tune, they should pay for it. Shame on her for stealing.

Boo hoo hoo, she can use the money to take care of her kids. Wake the hell up! Some of us have kids and having kids doesn't give anyone the right to steal. It boils down to being honest and not ripping people off. What kind of example is she teaching her kids?

This trial must be about our rights. Its like an idea, people copy actions and ideas all of the time. I don't believe that the music industry lost anything because the people who down loaded the music would have never bought the music in the first place. And the music industry has the technology to format the music to players only. They really caused this whole thing. I just don't understand where they plan on going with it. This could cause some real damage to themselfs in the end. I say set the presedent and let the cards fall.

Why is it that the poor people are the one the DA's always choose to make an example out of??? I don"t condone illegal downloading of music but this is an example where the punishment far exceeds the crime. Her lawyers should be disbarred for allowing her to bury herself this way that is what I find most outrageous. They should have to pay her fine for screwing her life up. Where is the Bar Association when you need them.

She is lucky she did not get criminally charged for theft. Three juries of her peers found that what she did was willful copyright infringement and decided the amount of damages. She did this hundreds of times. I have no sympathy for her. I pay my 99 cents per song. It is really a small price to pay - one of the few things that has gone down in price over the last 20 years.

As far as getting money out of the RIAA, I would suggest getting a lawyer or group of lawyers to file class actions on behalf of underpaid artists. If there is really a systemic problem, I am sure there is no shortage of lawyers who would love to take a high-profile, potentially lucrative case like that.

She should have paid the $1 per song BEFORE she ileagally downloaded and shared the music. Thjis is a fine. Although the amount is extreme, she should pay a considerable amount. She was offered a settlement of $5,000. She refused, so she deserves whatever fine is decided by the jury. Be careful what you ask for.

I just remembered something about bankruptcy.....since that is her attitude. I do believe those laws were changed recently that she CAN ONLY bankrupt 90% of the amount. Maybe that is why they set the amount so high, cause she ran her mouth and said she would just file bankruptcy. 10% 1.5m = 150k she would still have to pay.

I may be wrong about this. I still think she cant file because it is a criminal act she was slapped with [I am thinking that is why she hasnt filed already]

@Burr. I really doubt she's using the "pitiful mom" card, you might not have thought of this, but this might actually be a PROBLEM, for a mother with kids to come up with 1.5 million dollars for a few downloaded songs. Ever think she just might be telling it like it is? That SHOULD be in her argument. Because anyone ridiculous enough to charge a person that much money over downloaded songs NEEDS to understand how it will affect the person. A serious and dangerous criminal would never even be charged half that much. I'm glad you have your opinions, but if you were in her position, I doubt you'd keep them.

What I want to know is who is paying her legal fees? Does she work? Why does she think she ought not serve the time. If she wont pay te put her on the side to the road picking up trash with a sign saying " I broke the law" and make her work off the fines she should pay. Maybe she'll think twice before breaking the law.

I do believe that there are more convicted Drug smugglers, Money launderers, Kidnappers, Ponzi scheme artists, Gas station robbers, Mortgage fraud conspirators, Domestic abusers, Tax cheats, Blind Enron execs, Child smugglers, Man-slaughterers - combined who were fined less than this $1,500,000 ridiculous amount of money!!!!! Please...everyone of us reading this has at one time or another downloaded music w/out paying for it!!!

Everyone on here chastising her about doing this ought to look at themselves in the mirror and ask, could this happen to me!

OOPS...correction to above: "Sorry LINDSAY",,,Burr, righton

I promise she knew she was doing something wrong and didn't care. I read nothing in this article that indicated that she felt bad for stealing so she should get what the crime deserves.

Ok so you people think its ok for this lady to be charged 1.5 million dollars for the damages caused by downloading 24 songs? Yet Angelo mozzillo STOLE $179 MILLION F-ING DOLLARS OUTRIGHT AND ONLY HAS TO PAY BACK LESS THAN HALF OF THAT MONEY??? AND HIS NEW EMPLOYER IS PICKING UP THE TAB. AMERICAS PRIORITIES ARE SCREWED UP!!! So what she downloaded songs. Let me tell you this: there are literally thousands of musicians who would never have made it in the business if their songs hadnt been "illegally" shared on the internet. Anyone ever heard of Five Finger Death Punch? they only got famous because of people sharing their music on MYSPACE. I bet you now though they would sue if someone was caught sharing their music "illegally" When musicians are nothing and no one knows them the internet is the ONLY way they can be heard but once they're famous its now ILLEGAL? Heres my solution DONT BUY MUSIC FROM WHINEY CRYSACKS THAT COMPLAIN ABOUT THEIR MUSIC BEING SHARED. WHEN IS IT GOING TO BE ILLEGAL TO LISTEN TO MUSIC AT A FRIENDS HOUSE BECAUSE YOU DIDNT PURCHASE IT YOURSELF???

IF YOU DONT WANT YOUR MUSIC SHARED WITH PEOPLE DONT BE IN THE MUSIC INDUSTRY!!! DONT MAKE MUSIC AND DONT LISTEN TO IT!!! iF YOU DONT WANT TO SHARE YOUR MUSIC KEEP IT TO YOURSELF. DONT COMPLAIN WHEN THE PEOPLE WHO SUPPORT YOUR LIFESTYLE WANT TO SHARE A LITTLE BIT OF MUSIC FOR FREE.

Too many times I've bought a new album from a band I liked and it was crap. Why should I have to pay for music that I have never heard and might not like? If you want me to buy an album you better believe I'm gonna listen to it first.

is it ok to record off of the radio? if so, what is the difference then?

Gee, that Judge/or Jury must be so proud, they finally got one of the millions that steal songs everyday. What else can we waste the courts time on?

@ Ken Johnson - I have never downloaded music without paying for it. I believe it is morally wrong, and that I am stealing from the artist and disincentivizing future artists.

@guito - my advice is that if a new album from a band you like is crap, don't buy any more from them. Also, you might try reading reviews first or listening to the 30 second blurb they play on iTunes for free. It doesn't justify stealing.

Why they don't go after the source, the developers of the filesharing programs? And out of all the people that download from these programs she's the one who gets caught? Did she hack the record label and took that music? No, and 24 songs for personal use is petty when there's people who sell pirated music and movies in parking lots and flea markets across the country for a profit and I can think of only one person serving time for that.

Why does the headline need to list her as a single mom? Should we feel more sorry for her than anyone else because she had complete control over her reproduction at every stage and decided to deliver a baby without securing a willing father through marriage? Not just one baby. One. Two. Three. Four. Four babies. And a mortgage?

At least the song list wasn't completely horrible. She was accused of serving up over 1000 songs to millions of users.

Single Mom took a greater financial risk, so Single Mom should pay some sort of fine. A search on the topic states she turned down an initial offer to settle for $25,000. Single Mom keeps f**cking up.

Seriously, so I guess all you who say she's getting what she deserves never made mix tapes for anyone before, recorded songs off the radio or made copies of a CD you bought and gave it away? I have no pity for the recording industry or the artists. They are not hurting for cash, they don't have to wonder how to make next months rent. If they want to fine her, take 1 dollar for each song, just like she would have paid for them. And for all of you that say she should have taken the recording industrys first offer of 5000, do any of you even understand what that kind of money means to a single mother of four?

Oh she is guilty but has anyone been listening to the crappy music the industry has been forcing us to listen to lately? $9,250/song, then $80,000 per song and now they will settle for $25,000? Given the deplorable quality of today's music, I think a more reasonable sum she should be forced to pay would be 35 cents per song.

guito... The music is not yours, and you have no right to justify otherwise - period. "Share a little bit of music"? READ! READ THE THING BEFORE YOU JUMP! She literally GAVE these songs to thousands of people! She only got sued for 24 of them.Soooo, that pretty well wraps up about 1/2 of your rantings. The other 1/2 involves your unhappiness for a record album. So sorry for your loss.

The punishment exceeds the crime. This isn't a murder trial. The defendant obviously doesn't understand the gravity of thieving music, but honestly.

True, she did make a mistake. Her pockets are shallow-to-nil.

It's just 0.99 per song on iTunes. Pay for it. Simple.

You know, up until a few years ago music underwent intensive production. Studio produced music employs more than just the artists, it also employs the production board manufacturer, their employees, the sound board engineer, the studio architect and the construction workers who build it, the interior designer, the carpenter, the soundproof glass and walls (which are not cheap), which in turn employs the people who produce the soundproof material, management teams, promotional teams, the producer, executives and lawyers, instrument makers, instrument salesmen and compensation for when artists destroy things, i.e. hotels, stages, equipment. Essentially, up until the onset of computer-based recording programs allowing any Mike in a dormatory with a laptop to produce quality sound, album production was a major undertaking. It did cost the companies money and for their production and promotion investment they were rewarded handsomely with royalties. As they should be.

This is theft (yes, of course I've done it -- anyone who says they haven't is likely a liar), but it is theft -- cut and dry. For those decrying the industry for attacking the single Mom and not the source, they have. Sean Parker and the high-profile Napster case, along with The Pirate Bay creators and their internment in Swedish prison are just two of the many cases highlighting the industry's press on not only those who utilize the marketplace, but on those who create the marketplace to begin with.

She knew it wrong and she did it anyway. What's more, the reason they're specifically targeting this woman is because she not only downloaded the music, but also shared the music across the site. That's distrubution of stolen materials and that's a major felony in American states. So she was keen enough to extort from the industry but it shocked when the industry in turn attempts to extort her, and using her kids as a shield is the lowest form of scumsucking in our society today. What kind of an example has this woman set? Steal, deceive, fight your accusers and then use an innocent as leverage to deter punishment for your actions. That's just disgusting. And as someone said, yeah... there will be no bankruptcy in this case because it's going to have resulted from a criminal act, which (thankfully) we do not bail people out for (yet).

The Recording Industry apparently has plenty of money for attorneys, so how can they claim any actual injury, especially since they know she will declare bankruptcy and pay them nothing anyway. She should just pay them $24 and be done with it.

what about a small handshake cause she listens to their music.. thats about all they need if the music company's keep the royalty's away from the bands themselves.

Lastly, it's .99 cents a song. If you buy an album, you're generally cut a deal and can get it for $5.99, $7.99 or $9.99 on Amazon. She could've made her life a whole lot easier by not being a deceitful tightwad and ponying up a few bucks for something that doesn't belong to her.

Ken Johnson,you are wrong I have not heard any thing that I would down load or listen to,so do not say that we all have down loaded that garbage.thank you.

I say swing the bitch. What's the right thing to do here??? Pay like the rest of us. There are no free lunches. Get the hell

out of here.

stealing music is the same as stealing someones paycheck. If our society has so little regard for artistry in any form, art will die and so will the soul of the human being.

Do unto others as you would have them do unto you. She should pay by community service teaching the kids why it is wrong to steal music.

If you insist on breaking the law, face the music. Further, this is a terrible example for her children to see their mother getting away with breaking the law. Pay the fine.

The amount is extreme. She has been offered a smaller reasonable amount and declined.

Big issue here is that she is using her children as an excuse. She didn't say she would pay a resonable amount, she said she would NOT pay any amount. Was she thinking of her children when she committed the crime? I think not. Has she thought about how humilated her children are because of her criminal behavior, probably not.

As to her attorney only wanting her to pay the original $1 per song fee, that is just crazy. I wonder if she was a victim of a burgerly if she would only want the current value of what was stolen. Fines are a deterant. Do we ever question when someone is awarded emotional damages that is reasonable or if they are fined $500,00 for dealing drugs?

I`m amazed they don`t have their shills out stalking garage sales, to make sure there isn`t any records, tapes or CDs being sold without them getting the profits from it. I can see it now, people running garage sales being taken to court for not paying royalties from the sale of their old records tapes and CDs. I wouldn`t put it past them at all, after this.

Back in the mid seventies, a friend of mine was asked by a local rock group to record a set they were doing at the local hotel, so they could listen to it later and see what mistakes they needed to work on. So he setup his equipment, and started to record it. About twenty minutes into it, a man walked up to him, and asked him to stop recording. My friend asked him who he was, and he stated that he was with ASCAP. The band stopped playing, and it took a half hour just to get it through his thick head, they weren`t going to sell the recording, but use it to help them work out any mistakes they are making. Then he wanted to know, how much they were making from playing that night. That topped it off. They didn`t make a dime, because if they did, they would have to pay a percentage of what they made because of the copyrights.

The sad part is, the song writers, and the musicians who did the original work, gets very little if any profits, when the bulk of it goes to the label that put it out.

No wonder so many musicians are staying away from the big labels, and making the CDs themselves. Their being robbed under contract.

It's ridiculous - she should give them $1.00 a song that's what you pay on Itunes...

Huh? So, SuzyQPA, you think it's ok to steal, get a slap on the wrist and be able to go on your merry way? How ridiculous.

If that were how the law worked, almost everyone would steal. Why would you allow this woman to steal copyrighted music, get caught and NOT get charged much more than what you and I would legally pay for our music? You're thinking like a thief yourself, lady.

she had the opportunity to pay $1.00 a song but instead felt she was entitles to "steal". I think $100.00 per song for theft, plus 2 years in a federal prison plus the cost of caring for her kids while incarcerated would be a fair sentence for someone that thinks she has the right to rip off anyone she pleases.

Okay. Reality check, here. This woman knowingly and wilfully not only downloaded these songs she shared them online with countless others. And we are not talking about the twenty-four she was actually charged with but 1,700 in total. the RIAA opted to only file on the 24 but this woman was guilty of much more than violations on the 24. Furthermore, she had an opportunity to get out of this for $25,000 which she could have negotiated a long-term payoff or taken a loan. Instead, she turned down that offer, forcing more trials, taking up court time and money, costing large sums for paying jurors' fees (as modest as they are) and pay/salaries of court staff.

If this woman was a man, would she have been viewed more sternly by this collective? And what if she was guilty of ... perhaps child molestation? Or grand theft? Or bank robbery? Would she have been viewed more kindly here or just by other bank robbers or child molestors? She stole intellectual and artistic property and disseminated it to others as though it were so much crack or heroin. This is about punitive damages to the industry not what the actual loss was. This woman knew before she ever posted her first download that what she was doing was illegal. But, like every other crook, she just never thought she'd get caught.

Well, she did get caught and she should be made to pay for her crime. Yes, $1.5 M is outrageous but she did bring this on herself. She had an opportunity to pay 6,000 percent less. Let me repeat that ... SIX THOUSAND PERCENT LESS! If this silly woman was so concerned about feeding her children and paying her mortgage, maybe she should not have been spending so much time stealing music off the internet! And, like every other crook, if she doesn't pay the fine, she can be made to spend time in jail.

Hmph! At least them her children would have food and clothes and a roof over their heads. Wouldn't be hers but they would be taken care of, wouldn't they?

If you can't pay the fine, don't do the crime, especially if you have children.

What I want to know is where was the industry years ago ....when I could lend an album(an actual vinyl album) or a cassette to a friend and they could copy it and the industry wasn't whining then....I wonder why that is. It is because the people in the music industry back then played music and created music they were not in it for the corporate crap like they are now. All the music 'created' now is studioized and more than half of them can't sing worth a darn in real life. Come on tell me how Taylor Swift has a music contract.....she is monotone, heavy breathes and talks through her 'songs' she is NOT a musician she is a studio/commercial creation to make the record companies money. They shove people down our throats and tell us that they are talented.........and as sheeple the population all follows along like good little lemmings and buys the garbage that the industry tells them they should like and they should buy. The majority of the artists that are complaining about it own their record label therefore ARE corporate people. True artists actually want their music to be heard and enjoyed........not for free I am sure however without the internet and companies such as limewire there are many musicians that would NEVER have been heard by more than a few people. The fine for this is ridiculous to be sure but who are they making look bad......not her as she will get sympathy as another poster said how many people can say they never borrowed and copied an album, cassette, cd or song from a friend.........so what's next is LL bean or Liz Claiborne or Ann Taylor going to prevent me from lending a sweater to a friend of mine without paying a stipend to them too......or maybe if I lend my friend my car for a day are they going to be required to pay a fee to the car maker............be careful this is a slippery slope. If the original upload can be proven to have been purchased all that person is doing is 'lending' it to the friend...........talk about BIG BROTHER.....

Not even criminals get such a punishment! that is ridiculos, they should make her pay the actual cost of it, and do some community work, l believe is more than enought, they are hurting her children and they are inocent! BS!!!

I absolutely agree. I am so sick of this "single mom" excuse business. I was a single mother for 10 years and I didn't go around breaking the law. As an artist myself, I am apalled at people who try to circumvent copyright law. And if you have time to sit and download that amount of music maybe you should be working a second job to take care of those kids. Take RESPONSIBILITY for your actions!!!!

Totally agree. Musicians are rich already.

Recording off the radio IS legal and is expressily addressed in the law. You are usually not getting the whole song and the quality off the radio is NOT the same. It is the SAME law used to allow you to a copy in another format of music you purchased (like a backup).

More people are involved in the chain to get the music in your hands legally besides the artist. There are the people that write the songs, the studio musicians, the studio time and it's expenses, the marketing, the actual manufacturing of the cd's, the artist's rep (agent) that they do have an agreed upon contract to follow, the warehousing expenses, the shipping expenses, the store expenses, and everyone of these deserve a profit.

Music is copied because it is easy. You rarely see this in books because it is hard. The way the law reads, you may loan your book/cd to your buddy but you are giving up YOUR right to us it at the same time.

Theft is Theft no matter who is doing it. Everyone up the retail chain from the artist to the store has right to price things to cover their expenses plus make a profit and the artist agreed to that ahead of time. A lot of times the recording company loans the artist the money to put the albums together hoping that they sell enough to make back what they gave the artist, AS A LOAN. I know a lot of artists and they are NOT millionares. They did make agreements though to pay their managers AND the owner of the copywrited songs. Most artists DON'T write their own music or at least they do not write 100% of what they record. The people who wrote them deserve a cut and if they sold the copywrite to the studio then the studio paid them what they feel they could make back with a profit. Anymore though when the one who writes the music sells the copywrite the contract includes a clause saying that they will get an amount (fixed or percentage) for every copy or use of the song above what the studio (or whomever) purchased the copywrite.

Well we all download something free that you would have to pay some amount for it but instead of going after the person who downloaded it go after the person you UPLOADED! it in the first place. Movies that are recorded inside the theater then uploaded on the net is one thing but music it can only be a hand full of people. It was done by the band themself or someone who works in the studio. Some where around there the music was released and then uploaded on to the net so go after the ones who put it on the net and stop going after the ones who download it anything on the net that we can get free should be free without haveing to pay for it.

I am trying to figure out why the award is so high and what she actually did to warrant the charges. This article is strictly dealing with the fines.

That said, I abhor people who steal copyright. I work in the entertainment industry and PROTECT artists' copyrights.

Contrary to the comments that she should pay $1 a song - you forgot about statutory damages which are applicable in the cases of willful copyright infringement. The article reported the amount.

IT IS ILLEGAL TO INFRINGE ON COPYRIGHTS. Have you ever noticed the FBI warning on your DVDs?

I protect copyrights because that is how artists make a living. How would you feel if your employer did not pay your wages?

That is exactly how copyright owners feel when people steal their work.

Apparently THREE JURIES DEMANDED HEFTY CASH so she must have been really bad. Somewhere in the article they mentioned 1700 songs but the focus was only on 24.

Let's put this into perspective. The Movie and Music industry always used the tag line 'You wouldn't shoplift a CD or DVD, why would you illegally download it?' or something similar.

Had she SHOPLIFTED the 24 songs (2 CD's) she would have been charged in a criminal court under state law rather than in federal civil court. She would have been responsible for restitution of $500 or up to 50x the value of the product stolen, which ever is greater. At $1.00 song $12.00/ CD), that's $1,200 MAXIMUM restitution!

But a civil court can award $1.5 million and you people are OK with that??? With that mentality I hope none of you ever get into a car accident because you will get sued for 500,000x ACTUAL DAMAGES! I don't think even AllState will protect you from THAT.

It's not about how much she stole from them in one action, it's that her actions caused a large loss of revenue for the industry. She was offered a ridiculously low settlement amount but rejected it, so now her penalty should include the cost of attorneys for the opposite side.

Recording off the radio IS legal and is expressily addressed in the law. You are usually not getting the whole song and the quality off the radio is NOT the same. It is the SAME law used to allow you to a copy in another format of music you purchased (like a backup).

This is called Fair Use. However, you can not sell the recording you made for YOUR PERSONAL ENJOYMENT OR BACKUP because then that is COPYRIGHT INFRINGEMENT.

Yeah I know this is wrong! people dowload music everyday, whether its legally, or illegally, and yes, the songs on itunes are just a dollar, why should they sue one person for millions of dollars when really they should just be sueing the music downloading sites.

Put her in prison, she is a theif, and using her kids as pawns.

are you kiffing??? she STOLE that music. there must be some consequence for that, and it should hurt. she should pay some amount that repays for the music she stole PLUS an amount that causes some pain in her financial life. sorry about her kids, but how else can this be stopped?

I know my post is going to bring out the stone throwers, but really, it doesn't bother me. The truth is the truth no matter how many want it not to be.

While I agree, the fine is ridiculous, I also have to agree that if it weren't, people wouldn't "get it". But then, I guess we should all remember....this is a generation of entitlement. All things should be free, right?

Ok, take a look at what you are saying. YOU are the musician this time, or the artist, or the photographer...whatever kind of art you do. You've worked hard to write the song, record the song, and go on tour with the song, which by the way, doesn't come cheap. You're paying managers, bus drivers, recording studios, convention centers, advertisers, etc., etc., etc.
So now you find out someone is STEALING your song, your money (stealing is the appropriate word, since that's what it is.) your royalties and the money you are entitled to for the art that you produce. Would you still think it was ok if they were stealing out of YOUR fortune, or your child's fortune? Of course not.
Stealing, is stealing. Period. It's a crime. You play, you pay.

The part you all don't "get", is the fact that if someone uploaded the song, and 1 or 2 or even 10 million people DOWNLOADED that song, it isn't a mere $24. It's that dollar for every person that downloaded it illegally, instead of paying that lousy dollar to do it legally. That means the musicians etc, have lost 1 million, 2 million, 10 million dollars. (you imagine how many people got the song by stealing it and then multiply that by the one single dollar they could have paid for it). THEN, go back to my original question. If it were YOUR money, or your CHILD'S profession and money, would it still be ok?

And if this woman can't feed her kids, what is she doing with a computer and paying DSL, cable or whatever she uses to download that illegal music? If her kids came first, then she should have been attending to them and their needs, not sitting around on a computer getting involved in illegal activity.

I could lend an album(an actual vinyl album) or a cassette to a friend and they could copy it and the industry wasn't whining then....I wonder why that is.

I can answer. Your album was not digitally recorded and you didn't have the internet.

All these file sharing programs made it super easy to steal music. The recording industry has to protect its profits.

After all, the recording industry players paid lots of money to create, promote and market the music.

Now that it is so easy to steal, they are fighting back and were succesful in getting super high statutory damages to try and halt the THEFT.

I do not blame them one speck because it's their livelihood.

Or, how about you just hand over your salary to me every payday and we'll call it even.

It's only infringement if you profit.... she didnt. So where is her crime? not to mention the sites state 100% legal all over

Winkiesixtysix

Before the computer age they DID go after the people who made massive quantities of copies to give away or sell (called pirating), they did NOT spend the expenses to go after one or two copies because most people could not afford the time or expenses to get the equipment to make massive quantities. NOW, we have sitting on our table the equipment with the capability to distribute thousands to millions to ... copies for very little cost. Programs like Kazza are filesharing programs. You are not getting the file of one central server. You are getting files of any machine with kazza installed and you must install it to get your copy of another kazza machine.

LUCKY she's not in an Islamic country - they'd cut off her hands and ears.

Kristi

How do you know she did not profit?

first of all no should nor anyone else should be charged for the downloads it should be the creator of the website that should be charged....

reason 1. when you first sign on it ask if you want to pay or get the free trial..

reason 3. the person or persons who made it are very well responsible for putting such a website!!

so no i do not believe that this poor lady should be charged with these downloads, granted some people do know that limewire is bad news but somepeople just dont know!!! so leave her alone and go after the ones who put the site up in the first place other networks had to go through all the right steps to get their websites up and also pay for their websites up so why should lime wire not be responsible for all them downloads....

This is ridiculous! If she was receiving financial gain, I would agree with the decision. I do not see the harm of sharing music. They need to go after the people who make bootleg albums and sell them.

Illegal. Is illegal. Is illegal. She should have taken care of her kids while listening to the radio that she could have bought at Walmart for $10 bucks.

She was offered a ridiculously low settlement amount but rejected it, so now her penalty should include the cost of attorneys for the opposite side.

That's not how it works exactly but I'd be happy to bring you to court next time to see if the judge buys your argument.

For all you people who think the fine is so hefty, here is the actual law. Ever hear the term, ignorance of the law is no excuse? Well, it's not an excuse here either.

TITLE 17> CHAPTER 5 > § 504 Remedies for infringement: Damages and profits

(c) Statutory Damages.—

(1) Except as provided by clause (2) of this subsection, the copyright owner may elect, at any time before final judgment is rendered, to recover, instead of actual damages and profits, an award of statutory damages for all infringements involved in the action, with respect to any one work, for which any one infringer is liable individually, or for which any two or more infringers are liable jointly and severally, in a sum of not less than $750 or more than $30,000 as the court considers just. For the purposes of this subsection, all the parts of a compilation or derivative work constitute one work.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.html

People continue to miss the point. Illegal activity should be punished so our country will stop with corruption and free handouts and thievery. Perhaps the fine is excessive and a less restitution is more fair.

Heidi

I have news for you. The RIAA goes after the file-sharing sites like Kazaa and Lime Wire too.

In fact, Lime Wire was recently ordered to STOP PROVIDING SERVICE.

http://www.pcmag.com/article2/0,2817,2371462,00.asp

Lime Wire LLC has blocked the LimeWire service from the Gnutella peer-to-peer network via an isolation technology the company covertly installed, a source close to the company said.

"As a result of a court-ordered injunction, we are required to disable 'the searching, downloading, uploading, file trading and/or file distribution functionality, and/or all functionality; of LimeWire's P2P file-sharing software," Lime Wire spokeswoman Tiffany Guarnaccia told PCMag.com.

Hmm just a few things to say to them

1. Bankruptcy

2. F OFF

It's ridiculous this fine

Pay the $1.00 a song for every song she downloaded, then add a fine for doing it. Over a million dollar fine is just wrong, they do not fine shoplifters over a million dollars. They pay a fine, sometimes do jail time.

This is a matter of recording companies gone wild. I don't download songs for free, and I don't think she will ever again. But a hefty fine of $2500.00 to teach a lesson and the price of all the songs not just the 27 they sued over should be good enough.

And your comment is completely relevant???

SDR - you may consider me a moron. You are entitled to your opinion.

Nonetheless, my employers consider me to be an expert in copyright law which is why I can knowledgeably speak on this topic.

I suggest that you don't infringe because YOU TOO will get busted. I posted the link to the LAW in question.

What did OUR mothers tell us?.."If everyone jumped off of a bridge, would you jump too?" We all know the difference between right and wrong. the fact that many people commit this very same crime doesn't mean its okay to do it. I agree the punishment seems too big for the crime, but it was a risk she was willing to take.

What a scam! You think this is newsworthy. Make her pay the iTunes price and may be a hundred dollar fine with community service and be done with it. Some lawyer is scamming on this one to get famous. Do you think that she has that kind of money ($1.5 mil)? Uh, no! She is going to have to appeal or, most probably, discharge the debt via Ch. 7 bankruptcy. What a lose-lose situation.

Yes, this is ridiculous! For YEARS the news has been out that the RIAA will pursue copywrite infringers. Therefore, she must have know the gamble she was taking. And the article states that she violated 1700 times, of which only 24 were pursued.

There is no way she can afford to pay $1.5 million, but she should be accountable for blatant copy-write infringement.

How would any of us plain citizens feel if something we worked hard at was stolen by people rather than pay for the art they steal? And yes, it IS stealing!

Sure, Mel Gibson can afford to spend about $600,000 month, and other popular entertainers can do likewise. THAT IS THEIR BENEFIT FOR HAVING SUFFICIENT TALENT THAT PEOPLE PAY TO EXPERIENCE.

Duh! Are they supposed to work for free? Sure, they have millions and will not even miss a few dollars here or there for songs and movies that are bootlegged, BUT THAT IS MERE JUSTIFICATION FOR STEALING.

I used to record music from Kaazaa, but I stopped as soon as I heard about the RIAA suits. If someone wants to continue to play with fire, of course they will get burned.

I hope the judge reduces the penalty, but something should address a flagrant violation.

I'll say it again. The law determines the damages paid whether you like it or not. If you don't like it, lobby Congress to pass a new law.

It is FEDERAL law in fact. Again, I will post the link.

Read it yourself. If you don't like it, try to get it changed. I don't think you'll be too successful but you can try:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode17/usc_sec_17_00000504----000-.html

ridiculous or not. she took a chance and broke the law. got caught, so now pay the price. red light cameras are also against the law and ridiculous, but get caught and guess what happens. would not have happened if she didn't think that she could screw over someone. itunes $1.00, sounds like a bargin now.

Money can buy anything or anyone! The music industry has bought the Congress and they pass so called anti piracy laws so the music industry does not have tio invest in secure media. The justice departnent does their job on the taxpayers dime and enforcement of intellectual rights is done through fear and intimidation by our own government - not by software that the music industry would have to invest in!

No wonder people are fed up with Washington!

$ 1.5M is ridiculous, and they know it... where's she going to get the money from? However, I see it like this: The lady has been intentionally breaking the law and knew, that she was going to be made an example of, if caught. So she was ordered to pay $5K, and she refused, because she thought, it wasn't fair - again ignoring laws that she knew about-, and therefore the example had to be made an example of. It's kinda like the dopes who publicly smoke weed and then cry & scream 'Unfair! It's harmless!', when they get arrested.

But let's be fair. How come we get to listen to crap music that we don't want and not be compensated for having to endure it?

Karen... a lot of people here are unable to even comprehend the meaning of the articles title: "Single mom can't pay $1.5 song-sharing fine" so you're gonna get some odd ball comments.

The emphasis needs to be on "song-sharing" - she isn't being punished for downloading songs, she being punished for 24 of 1,700 songs she uploaded to a file sharing site. After scrolling through tons of comments since my last one (#1.34)... people just can't seem to understand the meaining of taking a person's intellectual copyrighted property and giving it away without permission.

The minimum fine is 750 dollars per song, the maximum I believe is 30,000. The 1.5million, and the 1.9million fines were atrociously horrendous...

When you STEAL music, you are not just stealing from an overpaid "artist" who won't miss the money. It takes a lot of people to make the songs you listen to, and most of them are underpaid and underappreciated. When you steal music, you are ripping them off even more so. Their paychecks have to come from somewhere, and the companies probably don't pay people like Ashley Simpson any less when they're hurting because the fans pay all attention to whoever the pretty lead singer (or dancing lead lip-syncher) is, and have no idea or care where the real talent in the songs comes from.

Pay for your music so the people with real talent behind the pretty faces can keep entertaining you. Or do you want the stars to start making their own "music?" Even the few talented stars need talented people backing them up. They don't do it all themselves.

People have to learn that music, movies & all kinds of art are intellectual property & represent the way an artist/writer makes a living & in many cases a modest living for hours of hard work & dedication. Illegal downloading is theft which must stop but in this case the fine is completely ridiculous & stupid. Pay a modest fine and do some community service or something & save the big fines to the real thieves like the bankers & brokers that have gone unpunished while their victims lose their homes & jobs.

I think she should have to pay a dollar for every song....... every time some else downloaded it....... then again every time some one down loaded it from them! And so on and so on!!! Like royalties!!!

Americans are notoriously bad at math, and juries are no exception.

Is she guilty, apparently so. But $1.5 million? Be serious.

How about if she had stolen a Lexus? A Lexus is surely more valuable than 1700 songs, much less 24. What are the damages for that?? $100 million??

ya, she could feed her childern, but she could have bought groceries with the money she spent on the I-pod, get a life, if its illegal its illegal, what part of that doesn't anyone understand

I think that she did break the law but she has to pay the price. But I no that lots of people have illegally downloaded at one point no matter what they say they have we all have. So if they get her why not they sue the whole world , rediculous i know so they should just settle on like $2,000. I know that its wrong, she herself knows its wrong. But since they sue her for that amount they look like jerks. I'm not saying that its wright, but I am saying that they look like jerks if they sue her for that much. I know music producers make money by selling those 24 songs, but its like this the CUT pure truness BOTTOM LINE we ALL have done it she should say she's sorry, pay a REASONABLE amount like so to say $2,000 and be done with it they would have to have filters on everybody's computers stealing we all know it's wrong but no - a - days that's like a given, like buying an i pod and getting headphones you know. All i'm saying to wrap it up is this has gone WAY TO FAR.

Like this if you think what I said is true.

she should have paid for the songs to begin with, when u steal, there is a lot more restitution due.

Here's another thought... if you use Kazaa or Limewire, or whatever else... you are NOT required to share your files, but you're regarded as a leach (ha-ha). Could've cut down on her fine considerably. :)

She should pay $1 a song? That's ridiculous! $1 a song is the price BEFORE you steal it! She knew she was stealing music...she should have thought about the consequences BEFORE she stole. Everybody and their mom knows the penalty for illegally downloading music these days...warnings are listed everywhere. She just thought that SHE wouldn't get caught and singled out, so SHE decided to carry on illegally 1,700 times! What an idiot!! Why would people stop illegally downloading if there was no punishment for it?! I think she needs to pay, but the 1.5 million is an absurd amount! Something more along the lines of $100-1000 per charge would be fair. Unfortunately, her having to take care of her kids is not an excuse...should we excuse every single person currently doing time, paying fines or being punished for stealing/theft/robbery because they have kids that they should be supporting? Whether you agree with the law or not, the bottom line is she consciously and purposely committed a crime...DON'T DO THE CRIME IF YOU DON'T WANT TO BE STUCK DOING THE TIME!! I don't feel sorry for her at all...she needs to pay for her bad decisions.

Those of you who support a fine should do some research on RIAA and its sister company SoundExchange. They are not fighting for the aritists to get paid, they are collecting royalties and holding them and if they are not contacted by the aritsts after 3 years, they keep the royalties.

This is wrong. The RIAA does not collect royalties.

BMI, ASCAP and SESAC collect royalties. These organizations are called performing rights organizations. RIAA is a trade group.

Here is a link to what RIAA does:

http://www.riaa.com/whatwedo.php

Here is a link to ASCAP does:

http://www.ascap.com/about/

RAT POISON - I think the numbers you posted are correct re: damages but there is more to it. I posted a link to the law and you can read it yourself. I do not totally agree it should be limited to filesharing sites. Even in movie theaters, we receive public service announcements that filesharing IS ILLEGAL.

I am ashamed of our court system to let 3 jury's waste their time and all the court time on 24 songs! this is what our country is about forget about all the people on death row that need to be put to death. She already stated she wasn't going to pay so then we have another bankruptcy, if it is illegal than give her a punishment and be done with it.

The RIAA and Legal System is so corrupt, it is amazing people obey any laws! How absurd this is!

Pay a modest fine and do some community service

Community service is NOT an option in FEDERAL COURT.

From my read of the article, she is protesting that she should pay anything at all and is using her single mother status as a reason why not.

If she files bankruptcy, it will be harder for her to get a job and credit, and it stays on her credit report for 10 years.

Is it illegal to go into a library to check out a book? Why is it illegal to download songs? I mean, back in the day, we would copy tapes of songs for our friends or girlfriends and it was all good. But now the music companies pay a lot of money to make sure these stupid laws are passed because they don't make enough money from concert sales, music that's already being sold, etc., right?

It's not about being techno savvy it's about priorities, responsibilities and theft. She says she can't feed her children if she pays for songs - well how about this FEED YOUR CHILDREN. Enough said.

if she didn't want to pay she should not download the music....and don't use your "single Mother" status as an exuse....that's an insult to all Single Mothers !!!!!

What is the difference in what this woman has done, and recording cassette tapes from songs on the radio ten years ago? If there is a difference let me know, or leave this woman alone... unless you never taped your favorite song!

But let's be fair. How come we get to listen to crap music that we don't want and not be compensated for having to endure it?

You made me laugh but honestly, you can turn it off and on at will so your argument is bogus.

So what is more important to her??? Music or her children??? She should have paid the cost to DL music in the first place! Then her fine would not have even been an issue! prioritize mom! Be honost! If your children come first, why is DL music even an issue!? She may just be trying to get time with the media world! Bite it girl and get a real life!

Rat Poison

I misread some of your post and just wanted to acknowledge that. Sorry.

You are absolutely correct that she is in super trouble because she willfully uploaded songs on to a filesharing site, which in turn were distributed to other people, and so on.

THAT IS THE POINT.

The reason why the award is so high is because she kept refusing to pay and the fine kept increasing. If you read the law, there is more room for damages than the amounts you cited.

I was not on the jury and did not read the entire case but can only assume that it kept going up because of her bad attitude that she did not think she was wrong and that she should not have to pay because she's a single mother.

She should run for congress,she's apparently well qualified. If elected,she could steal millions.

Yes the law is blind... and there should be a limit to taking money from a single mom when she can be feeding her kids.

I am sorry I have to disagree with you. She willing broke the law. She has shown no remorse or even said I am sorry. She has fought to try and get out of this. As far as yeah if she did it the legal way she would of paid 24 buck, but she chose to do break several federal laws she is lucky she is not in Jail now. The reason she now is ordered to pay this large amount is due to this facr she knew and still broke the law and she has not even said I am sorry. I have friends who have taken pay cuts due to this sort of thing. I am sure it does not really hurt the artist he will get his, but one who works for the recording company t omake the song or the artist workers who go on the road with him some have even lost there jobs since the artist not want to lose money it just good business

he needs to take responsibility for her own actions and she cannot file bankrupy do to the fact she broke a federal law and do not forget that they can still charge her with the crime and sent her to prision. I think she should of taken the first offer of settlement, but like most everyone else in this world it is eaiser to steal as long as you not have to pay it back. Try going into a bank or and airport and act like you have a gun and even though no one would get hurt you will go to jail same difference She got got and now has to pay, I hope she and everyone else has learded a valuable lesson here do not break the law unless you can pay for your crimes

Absolutey amazing after reading most of these comments. This country and world for that matter is in truly a sad state of affairs. Come Yeshua please!

this is no different than recording off the radio, plain and simple

You know what I think?......wasted tax dollars on court and legal fees. Single mothers who can hardly afford to feed there children will not be paying $1.5M in fines. Just call it the largest collection account ever recorded. Lets get real. I cant understand why any attorney would bother taking this to trial. Makes for a good story to read I guess in hopes to deter other music pirates.

These "Artists" should be treated as they are - trained monkeys...and should be payed as such.
They are not artists at all, but, rather, flim-flam people. They owe US...we dont owe THEM.
They should be glad we listen to them at all.
They dont need more money just to put up their noses or in their arm.
THAT being said, this judgment is NON-dischargeable in bankruptcy - it is an intentional tort. They will be able to get 25% of her net earnings (after exemptions) for LIFE.
I think we should all go on strike and refuse to buy ANY music.

I'll bet if it were Hilton or Lohan, NOT ONE WORD WOULD BE SAID. But then they can afford our legal system.

Come on, people. READ the article - SHE HAD 1700 SONGS. They only chose to prosecute for 24.

Those songs are shared. If each one was shared 10 times, then she is responsible for the theft and distribution of 17,000 songs.

All those comments that don't look at this as a "real crime," or say the music business makes too much money are probably from serial downloaders trying to convince themselves that they are not criminals either.

You can try to spin it, but IT"S STILL STEALING.

For those who download. What if it was your business? If you owned a successful bakery and someone comes by every day and just takes a donut, how would you react? Would it be, "Well, I make too much money, so it's ok if someone takes some." How about, "No, Mr. Policman, he shouldn't have to pay the $250 fine for shoplifting, just $.70 for the donut."

Ok so let me get this straight, they want to make this lady pay 1.5 million dollars for illegally downloading music? Yes it is illegal and so are drugs I have been to court and I can guarantee that 3/4 of the cases are dealt with drugs and they get away with a slap on the wrist, who was she hurting? The musicians that get paid what she owes in a day! It's pretty pathetic the law is looking for people illegally downloading music instead of murderers, drug dealers, druggies etc. PRETTY DAMN PATHETIC!!!!!!

But let's be fair. How come we get to listen to crap music that we don't want and not be compensated for having to endure it?

You made me laugh but honestly, you can turn it off and on at will so your argument is bogus.

Oh, Karen, really? Tell that to the shopping mall people who rain down on the people with their idiotic tunes...

If you use a proxy server out of Canada are you safe? Cannot legally track you?

There is a lot more to this than just downloading 24 songs. The pertinent details are not in this article. No jury would come up with these numbers for some simple personal download.

The fine is unrealistically high, but of course you should be fined something. Its stealing, and helping other people steal. When someone robs a store and gets caught, do we let them off the hook for paying the value of the items stolen? No. And if they had the money for the item, they should have paid for it instead of just taking it. I have a degree in audio. It was an expensive degree. When people steal music, some people like me don't get paid. Just because the artists may be rich and famous doesn't mean the behind the scenes people are too. We're usually not. P.S. stealing from the rich is still stealing, and its NOT OK. This isn't a violent crime, but its not a victim-less one either. All should be held accountable for their actions. Now, do I expect a mother of 4 to pay over a million dollars for it? No. But I also expect a mother of 4 to be more honest and use better judgement.

Pay a modest fine and do some community service

Community service is NOT an option in FEDERAL COURT.

Not to mention this was not a criminal trial, it was a civil trial. The woman was sued, not prosecuted.

1.5 million is way to much! I bet if she went into best buy and stole a cd with 24 songs on it and shared it with her friends she wouldn't get a 1.5 million dollar fine. What she did was wrong but not 65000 dollars a song wrong...

If she stole from a retail store, she would have to pay a fine. The reason the fine is high because it is meant to discourage theft from an easy mark for thieves. People need to understand, whether they agree with it or not, that until the law changes this is theft of property from which someone and more likely, a group of people are earning their living. What about their children?

for a single mom to be downloading all those songs sounds like she has to much time on here hands. Is she collecting a welfare check? But yet again F Corporate America...... You people are complaing that artists should get paid...well they do by the millions.GOD only in america would and idiot post stupid illiterate opinions standing up for someone who makes more than at least 20-30 working class people. And you people wonder why our country is in a recession. Quit paying 100 a ticket to a show. Quit paying 20-30 dollars for a music cd. People in this country are just plain DUMB why cant you fellow Americans Wake the F*** up. PLEASE FOR THE SAKE OF THIS COUNTRY AND WHAT IT WAS FOUNDED ON. THE CONSTITUTION WILL NEVER CHANGE SO THOSE OF YOU WHO THINK WERE CHANGING GOOD LUCK!!!!!!!!!!!!

She deserves to pay a penalty, not just pay the price she would have paid if she chose to purchase in the first place. Theft is criminal and should pertain to music the same as theft of any property.

"There is no way to do the wrong thing right" - Barry Layl

1.5mil is a stupid amount, and i think 24$ for getting cought is also not enough, if your going to do it, dont get cought and if you get cought expect a fine, but maybe a 100$ fine for each song would be reasonable amount, 100 times the amount she'd have paid from i tunes

and realy if they want to get people to stop "stealing" music, then they need to go after those people who record to tapes, and what about those people who still record on a vhs or tivo then copy to dvd? and you can record tv on your computer, thats stealing to, why just the people who rip off a 1$ song from time to time? isn't there bigger issues in the country then 1$ songs?? we should be worried about these government workers who give them selfs 20k$ bonuses and raises every year, fine them just for being ignorant

Really? i mean come on they will go after people for downloading songs BUT THE COURTS wont go after dead beat fathers that havent paid child support in years because when they find the dead beat dads THE COURTS SAY THEY HAVE TO DO IT BY THE BOOK (which really just gives the dead beat dads time to run else here)! COME ON WHERES THE PRIORITIES?? Hey MUSIC industry does this mean if we by a bad cd we can return it for our money and then some for the time it took to buy the cd,listen to it and realize sometimes you guys just release crap instead of good quality music?

She could have settled for a couple thousand dollars. She refuses to accept any responsibility. That is why she is being penalized so severely. Someone has to be made an example of in order to deter these kinds of CRIMES people. Stealing has always been a crime and will always be. You can't go into a record store and steal a CD, Right?

I belive that she should be punished for the full amount of the damages. She stole 24 dollars worth of music, she should be punished as if she had shoplifted 24 dollars woth of merchandise.

She is not paying for downloading them she is paying for uploading them or in other words downloading them for free and then giving them away to a bunch of people. Maybe you can give her a call and let her come to your house and start giving away all your stuff and family heirlooms. You not really need a car she can give all your stuff away. I am sure you would be the first at the police station saying you want that crazy woman arrested. She is very , very , very luck she has not been charged in a Federal court of law if that were the case she would have 24 charges and each charge carries like 10 years or so. The government can still charge her and no she can not file bankruptcy since it is a federal crime she committed the downloading is not as serious as her giving them away.

Actually since she has wasted a lot of other peoples time and $$ she should pay the $1 per song plus all the tax payor $ spent on lawyer fees and court costs...

True, the actual damages might only be $24, but the rest can be considered punitive damages. There are copyright laws that have to be enforced and this will give anyone else considering to do what she did something to think about.

These songs are somebody's private and intellectual proprerty and they are entitled to earn their rightful commisions each and every time their song is distributed/shared. We have absolutely NO RIGHT to share another's intellectual property without first securing permission.

It boils down to this...suppose you make widgets for a living. You sell your widgets for a profit,which is your business.Now let's say some dirtbag comes along,grabs your widgets,and just starts to give them away. That's right,you're being cheated! Same thing applies here.

Everybody does it, 1.5 million is way to much. The music industry is paying their lawyers tens of thousands of dollars to go after this women and at the end they won't get a cent...

What part of illegal do people not understand. If you do the crime you should pay the fine. Illegal means that you did it intentionally and with malice which means you knew you were doing wrong to begin with. I get tired of these people playing the "my poor little children will suffer" card once they get caught. What are they teaching their kids - "It's alright to take what others have till you get caught then cry and whine your way out of it." We have enough freeloading in this country. If you don't have the money then don't buy the honey. I work for what I have and have never taken anything from anyone. To put it plain, it's called STEALING.

Actually that is what the jury decided... $1 per song plus lawyers fees.. Which adds up to about 1.5 Million for the three trials. Can anyone say tort reform... Anyways.... she deserves it!! Pay up the $5000 fine which is what... $3 a song? but she refused and wanted lawyers involved. She gambled and lost. Now what? Does she want to settle for $5000 now?? To bad so sad!!!! She probably voted for the same party that supports this kind of legal action.

I agree. It is cruel and unusual punishment. If you want to punish her then charge her the most like $15.00 per song which is what you would have lost from the people that downloaded. But the reason it is so excessive is that they want to scare everyone. Make her an example! I don't agree with what she did, but neither do I agree with them railroading her to scare others.

I can't believe the amount of the fine, and think she would have been better off paying for the songs! If she didn't, as she says, download them, then who did?? Got any teenagers in the house? And no, I'm not prejudiced against youth, but many times teenagers download music without reading all the fine print that goes with it! In my opinion, her appeals processes are costing us more than what she is fined, and Heaven help, if she has to PAY all the court costs!! If you steal from a store, you get caught, they DON'T just let you pay the amount of what you stole!! You pay with fines or jail! If you rob a bank, you get jail time, so why should she get off scot free?? Innocent? I don't think so. Millions are downloading music off someone else's site, possibly friends or family, and never think a thing about it, but 2,700 songs and never paying a dime for them? That is theft, regardless of what she thinks!! Go ahead and file bankruptcy, lady, you are still a thief and now everyone knows it!!

I got one word for a $1.5 million fine being leveled on a single mom: BULL@!$%#

snoozer-2114352 : Read the article... comprehend the article, the settlement was $5000.00 per song, the average is $3,500.00... the best settlement had her at $1,041.67 per song which she refused. The lady is an idiot of the highest degree and my sympathies to her kids.

Frank45 : If you upload a song to a file sharing site, be prepared to pay a fine of $750-$30,000 dollars per song. "Everybody does it" is not an excuse the federal judge will accept.

Bob Dennis-2616071 : "True, the actual damages might only be $24..." incorrect... because we're not talking about the lady downloading songs illegally... we're talking about her uploading 1,700 songs to a file share site - violating copyright laws and allowing people to download for free. How many times was each song downloaded? I guarantee it well exceeds $24 dollars. Why else do you think the law has the fine set at the amounts listed to Frank45?

Chris Jenkins-2615906 : Read the article, hell just read the title... it's not about her downloading... again its about her uploading the files for distribution. It's the same as going to the movie store and renting a movie... taking it home and making 10,000 copies and then giving them away.

peacespeakenglish : Yeah... same advice read the article.

...

...

Read the article folks, reading all these comments is a face-palm moment litered with the embarassing realization that the simple language went over your heads.

And the dumb keep getting dumber!!!

1.5 million for illegal downloading of music???????????????? That has to be a fing joke rite????????????????????????

This is what happens when the industry writes the laws. The most recent patent and copyright act is draconian to say the least. There are licensing agencies who are hitting up small sandwich shops for fees for playing the radio. If Microsoft or whoever decides to sue you, then you will go bankrupt or pay them an amount they consider sufficient to send a message to everybody else. Free speach isn't free.

This is really unjust for them to prove a point. After all it is the people who make their record label so rich in the first place. Back in the day people would record on a cassette tape off of the radio. I think they need another 1.5 million. A 500 fine might have been more reasonable. Wait to go Recording Industry makes me not want to listen to any of their artist anymore! Thank god for the internet half their songs wouldnt be what they are ... Justin Beiber and the other that were found on the net! Look at them now sold out concerts and they are rich. Next they will fine us for singing their songs on Karaoke Night.

Great...the only one who really gets punished is the taxpayer. Or do they expect the lady to pay $1.5M fine, court costs, lawyer costs, etc.? Even better, go lock her up, so we can pay for her children too. I'm not saying she has a right to pirate songs, or share them on the internet, for that matter, but all I can see is a lose-lose situation that helps absolutely no one. The damn system is broken.

Americans always try to get away with somethin. Sometimes we get caught.

It is simple- steal the intellectual property of others, pay the piper. Don't download illegally, and NEVER sell those downloads.

I have multiple comments:

That feeding my children comment is crap!

Everyone is sorry when they get caught. We all know this is illegal and if we get caught we have to pay the price.

The price on the other hand is way too steep. Even if it was 10 times the price of the song it would make a bit more sense. Stealing is stealing and you can dress it up anyway you want but If I own something and someone else takes it I'm not too happy!

There are laws against this type of stealing, however this is to an extreme. The recording industry should be ashamed of themselves. This is a waste of taxpayer money. My money, that I pay into our govenment. I have never downloaded music nor do I intend on it. The music industry that took her to court, is just as guilty of bad business practices as she is of stealing their recorded music.

wow are you serious?!?!?! do you kow how many ppl downlaoad music everyday!??! and then you want her to pay 1.5 million dollars the mnusic companies aret hurting at all. its your going to 'punish' her then make her pay $1.00 per song she downlaoaded and be done with it we are not mad of money and its hard times right now your wasting tax money by taking this poor women to court. grow up charge her $24.00 and be done with it. Its not that serious. I guess thats why I had to delete my limewire...

What the article fails to address is that sites such as Limewire have multiple users who share files, and if more than one person is "seeding" a file (connected and sharing the same file) the program alternates from computer to computer in order to download it faster, thus a user who is "seeding" a popular song may, in reality, only be uploading a snippet of a song file. Since song snippets are frely available, hardly a crime.

And I haven't seen anyone address the cassette comparison. I bought countless records on vinyl in the 60's and 70's, and I made copies of those albums on tape to play in my cassette player in my car. Should I have had to pay full price for a cassette version of the music I'd already purchased? I don't think so. So if I download something today, it's usually something I used to own on vinyl, and since I already purchased that music once, I'm simply using a different medium for my previously purchased material. I shouldn't (and won't) pay twice for the same item.

I'm speaking only for myself here, but fair includes ALL people, me included. If the world weren't so full of greedy lawyers, laws, that allow anyone to sue anyone for any amount, and artists who think their brainfarts are priceless intellectual property, the whole world would be better off and MY TAXMONEY wouldn't pay for out-of-context nonsense cases like this. I don't care for any kind of music, I'm the better without it. Per my own definition, most musicians are either too lazy or not qualified to get a real job that contributes to society.

One dollar per song plus a 10 dollar fine for each one--- that is reasonable.

I think that most of us, including most posters above, have downloaded music, but for our own use. This woman, however, for reasons not made clear, decided to distribute the music to thousands. No mention seems to be made of her having profited from her actions, but otherwise, her motives are unclear.

That said, I still think the fine is ridiculously high. Maybe they really want her to go to prison as an example to others.

Come on now this woman is being asked to pay too much money for all of this needs.when it was probably one of her kids that did most of the music downloads.

Personally I believe the music downloads should only cost between $.10 and $.25you may say that's not enough money to cover the artists fees but I disagree it is the cost of doing business that's their problem. Music isn't worth any more than $.10 a download or $.25 if it's good. An entire album can be downloaded for about $5.

you must remember most of the fees that she is paying it's going to go to pay the firm of the attorneys that are sewing her. So it's the greedy attorneys that are making the majority of the money.

But I totally agree that this woman is being sued for way too much mone. And like they say you can't get blood out of a turnip.

The difference between the copying of vinyl onto cassette FOR YOUR OWN USE is different than making copies of downloads and SELLING THEM is simple. Making a profit off other peoples intellectual property is theft. Making a copy of personal property to proetect your investment is simple common sense. SHe deliberately stole the work of others and sold it for profit. Now, she needs to pay the price.

The bars SHOULD be paying a license to allow them to use the karroke PLUS to cover their behinds if the band plays a song that they did not pay royalties for. http://governor.state.tx.us/music/guides/music_in_venues and http://www.ascap.com/licensing/licensingfaq.html

Ever churches have to have licenses though for them there are a couple one stop licensing sites. for example http://www.onelicense.net/ and http://www.ccli.com/

Why can't more people not have to pay for their crimes? The neigbor's kid steals all the time. Stealing is not a crime it's just liquor stores, they don't need the money, it was only 200 dollars and that is all he should have to pay back. He never had to shoot at anybody.... 4 years is a long time in jail, he can't feed his family now.

There's a time for a slap on the wrist and a time for a slap on the butt. Make her pay! Her life won't be over after bankruptcy. She will have learned a hard lesson and we'll all take notice.

Ridiculous, they say that they are using the money for starving musicians (not the musicians who's music was downloaded).

So how then do they justify the legal and attorney fees they have paid out (could have been used to fund the starving musicians)when in reality she will file bankrupcy and not pay a dime.

What exactly did they accomplish with this?

Don't blame the recording industry (lobbyists) for writing the laws. It's congress who votes to approve them and we vote to put them in office. We need a little less talking and a little more action. Take responsibility and vote or even lobby for your own laws.

Is It Stealing???

I pay for my Internet service...

Like Hillery Clinton said ...use the Internet ..it has so much for you...

I am a singer songwriter and I welcome anyone to come to get my songs to listen AND D/L for free...

I am sick and tired of these rich SOB"s getting rich on everyone's hard earned money ..FOR WHAT??? a song...

some of these so called songs are not even music ...

Just don't d/l any Gagag's songs ..If that's what you wanna call em..

  AND FOR ALL THOSE WHO THINK THEY ARE LIVING WITHOUT SIN for not d/l songs.... WOW!!!!! great for you...you will go straight to Heaven you lucky SOB"S ...

your life is so squeaky clean to come on here and tell everyone they are thief's... just because you don't d/l from Internet..

remember unless you have someones permission,, you should not take ANYTHING off the Internet .. according to you.... it is steeling....

kinda of bites you in the A$$ don't it ....lol

uninsured, most of those that are screaming that the lady should pay because she "is breaking the law" are the same idiots that will believe any lie that they can find on the internet as long as it has been spoon-fed to them by some rich media stooge.

and lawsuits like this one that the RIAA started was the main reason that I stopped buying any kind of music, or downloading any kind of music.

skroo the RIAA and their fancy corporate attorneys preying on little people like the vultures they are.

A lot of messages here have made the comparison between file sharing and recording off the radio or from a CD. They are not the same. It is legal to record a song off the radio and it is legal to make a copy of a CD you purchased, so long as they are for personal use. On the radio, the song is in the public domain. With the CD, you have already purchased a copy. It becomes against the law as soon as you give a copy to someone else. With file sharing or uploading songs, that person is now sharing innumerable copies of a file/song with others. From what I understand, this women uploaded and shared 24 songs (apparently she downloaded over 1,000). If she had only downloaded the songs and kept them to herself, that would be stealing because the songs were not in the public domain and she didn't own a copy. But instead, she gave someone else's property away to untold numbers of people. That's why the fine is so high.

I'm not saying I think the amount of money is completely appropriate, but her crime is much different than taping a song off the radio.

While this fine appears ridiculous at first glance, this lady willfully stole 1,700 songs and shared them with countless people. That possibly amounts to infinite sales the record company and the artsist have lost because of her CRIMINAL actions.

The eventual fine seems large since she didn't commit a violent crime. Why Did she refuse to pay the $5,000?? That could have been payed via payment plan and was quite reasonable. I really hope she takes responsibility. That would be a great lesson for her kids, the ones she is trying to feed.

WOW. Seriously concerned about the US literacy rate just from the commentary b/c it seems ppl fail to read for comprehension yet feel free to embellish.

Nowhere in this article did it say she was "poor".

Nowhere in this artile did it say she was "on welfare supported by [your] tax dollars".

Nowhere in this article did it say she has ultimate control over the press coverage & insisted the phrase "single mom" be inserted in the article's title.

The 1st 2 things are embellished assumptions (& y'all know what they say about assume by now). The fact that she is lacking a spouse atm has nothing to do w/ anything, but it sure does lead some of y'all off on tangential garden paths.

Unbelieveable, she's their whipping post. Someone like her could never pay that type of money. They are not wanting her money, they want yours! Remember, there's a sucker born a minute & two to take him. They are the "two to take her" in this case. It's all about the money honey.

Why go after a single mother instead of any one of the thousands upon thousands of other people that commit the same "crime" regularly? Do the people who say that she deserved the fine even realize how common using p2p software to share music and other files is, especially among teenagers and college students? The kids at the college that I went to that live in on-campus dorms used the broadband provided by the college to do the same thing that this lady did, and on a much larger scale. Please go look through your childrens' computers. Look at the playlists on their IPods. Did he or she pay for every song on it? Most kids use Kazaa, or something like it. We can ruin the future of the next generation too if you like. Is every copyrighted item on your computer yours?

We live in the Information Age. Zeros and ones will propagate through networks whether you like it or not.

This goes to show you the greed of the music and movie industry. As a kid I was coping LP's on to cassettes and even 8 tracks. Everyone has done it and there will always be someone who can get around it. Murderer's don't even get to pay that much or being busted with drugs. What our Judical system need todo something besides going after something so stupid and wasting tax payers money for court cost. That city is paying a million dollars everyday that that is in court. And alot of people agree with this. Look where your tax money is going first on something so stupid.

Laughable. But here's a solution, the American way. No, you can't sue 'em, so sell the rights to your courtroom drama to some filmmaker. Judging by the 5,000+ comments here, I'm sure there'll be some bored out of their skulls folks who'd watch this. Collect your royalties, pay off your fine & feed your children, everyone's happy and the world isn't much dumber for one more boring movie or documentation, just as it isn't for listening to pirated gangsta rap, that promotes violence, crime, sexual abuse and racism.

Why is it not ok for this woman to steal other people's intellectual property rights, but it's ok for a corporation to steal the intellectual property rights of individuals (I am referring to the big flap about the magazine that got caught stealing other people's articles... it's all over the consumerist and other sites right now in case you're unfamiliar)? She should be made to pay no more than they are.

Some of you it seems need a brush up on basic law. This woman was NOT fined! Only the various government agencies can impose fines. She was NOT charged with a crime, again, only the government can do that.

She was sued, in federal CIVIL court and a jury awarded $1.5 million.

An obscene amount of money for $24 worth of music. While I respect artist intellectual property rights, these oscene lawsuits do nothing for the public opinion of the industry, many of todays artists would still be playing for bar whores and drunks if it werent for the illegal downloaders and the industry has sold itself out charging nearly the same for a digital copy of a CD as they do for a physical copy despite the lack of production, shipping, stocking costs.

What she did was wrong, but was petty theft. She isn't Kenneth Lay of Enron

NO $1.00 a song is if you BUY IT....she clearly felt that those artists didnt deserve a $1 and STOLE THEM!!! So...heres what I propose.... the sentence should be the same as if she entered a store and stole the cd from the store. Shes a cyber shoplifter.... but 1.5 million... who the hells smoking crack in the courts... its a simple shoplifting case....MILLIONS OF THEM ARE SENTENCED A DAY. A $1 per song..... 1.5 million..... Y'ALL are crazy!!! Moderation people.....moderation.....

Actually, from what I understand, she uploaded the songs to the website, or whatever it is. This makes available a song that normally would cost money free to anyone who stumbles across the download. If you take into account how many times each song that she uploaded was downloaded for free, I can see how they would arrive at a seemingly outrageous number.

This woman deserves a hefty fine - maybe not $1.5 mil, but I think the $5,000 they mentioned seemed like she would be getting off too easy. Maybe she'll learn her lesson.

Uninsured- if YOU are a songwriter, I'm Miley Cyrus. NO songwriter wants his/her work stolen, then given away to others. They worked their asses of to create that music. IF they wanted that music given away for free, THEY would have downoaded it to the free site THEMSELVES!! When you create intellectual property, it is exactly that- PROPERTY. You sell copies of it, but you are not selling the rights to it. You maintain ownership of the ideas, and NO ONE ELSE has the right to profit from your work unless you PAY them to do so (agents, managers, recording companies, etc).

OK...A $1 per song? Then, how about she continue to pay that same $1.00 per song, for every other person that downloaded the music that she ILLEGALLY put on the internet. She needs to pay for

her ignorance?! Play by the rules or be penalized in society. PERIOD!

$1 dollar a song for each song she downloaded and uploaded sounds fair. That comes out to somewhere over $1,500,000.00 - that sounds fair to me.

Why don't the people who illegally stole the song by copying it from her have to pay?

Get real she's being asked to pay way too much money. The music isn't even worth that much money.

Buying a cassette or CD they own that copy of the music and have a right to back it up.

To put it simply who put the music on the Internet and who did she download it from. Are they going to sue them to and what if they downloaded it from somebody else. Are they going to sue them to. This'll wind up being a never ending chain of events. One lawsuit after another that is ridiculous. What is this woman supposed to do starve her kids. That would be child abuse. The truth is this sheet music is what they get royalties for. Not the song day saying. That's the way it should be but if you want to support the songwriter by giving her a buck or two. Being good for you.

And who says this woman was selling the music that she downloaded in the first place. She might have uploaded one or two of her old songs. But how does that hurt the artist? It seems to me that it's good public relations.( good advertising). And the music that you download free is never that good anyways. If you want to get the better music you will have to pay a little bit for the download. Because then it's a quality downloaded.

And people that download music usually wind up going to the store and buying the artis song on CD.

She didn't buy it from Itunes, she stole it and left it on a site that would allow thousands more to steal it.

the DMCA of 1998 was a play to remove even more of an individuals rights to what they buy. giving the wealthy even more ways to get rich off of the poor and middle class.

DANWILL: Oh, boo-hoo-hoo. You're making me cry. If people cannot afford to pay to download, then they can tape for free for personal use from the flippin' RADIO. Stop whining about how you have wasted your life and have less money than others, will you?? Whose fault is that, huh?

You mean to allow the creator of an artistic endeavor the true ownership of the results their work. An excellent idea.

Sites such as kazaa.com off for a filesharing software. The files do not sit on any kazaa servers. The files said: the computer where the kazaa software re-signed. this software has a node that in last turned off allows automatic filesharing of music files among others. since the file set or her computer they're trying to say she's responsible for those files that were downloaded to other people's computers. Remember I said unless the node is turned off you're automatically uploading files with the you know what are not.

So truthfully she's just trying out the music to see if she likes it before she buys. It's no different than going to the record store.

So if you go to the store and steal a candy bar and get caught they shouldnt hav to pay the fine? only the cost of the candy bar? that is so stupid. She Illegally downloaded something, like most of you do every single day... which causes musicians to go bankrupt and cause chaos in their life. IF YOU ILLEGALLY DO SOMETHING YOU WILL PAY THE PRICE... make her pay 1.5 million and teach the rest of you to @!$%# straight and legit.

hey battywoman, I said that I CHOSE not to support the RIAA by not purchasing anything associated with them, it has nothing to do with my ability to pay, and everything with my FREEDOM of choice. I consider their actions to be immoral and unethical, it was their own fault for their inability to adapt to new media. it took apple to show them how to pull their heads out of their arses, and adapt. but I guess you don't actually support a true free market, do you? from your obvious rants, you would greatly prefer to have the government protect antiquated dinosaurs of a business model.

with attitudes like yours, it's no wonder this country is falling apart.

anyways, how's that bootlicking thing going for you?

ed connor
Rembrasha-

Have you ever published anything? Has anyone ever paid to read or listen to your brilliance?

How about you stop STEALING and pay for our art?

13!#1.25 - Fri Nov 5, 2010 5:07 PM EDT.

Yes Ed' ---

My first record release was in 1982 --

I have since produced over 500 works of music and my music has been used in films, commercials, radio plays, etc...

I am a solid member in standing (BMI).

During my Guest Speaker engagement at the "Atlantis Music Conference", I proposed that many musicians should take works that they consider usless for commercial purposes, and combine them into a single album, and then release them as "Public Domain" so that they can provide a service as musicians while getting the name recognition for those works as the works are used in the world wide web.

I have worked in the broadcasting industry both Radio & TV for a good part of my life since the 70's and have a very good knowledge of not only copyright, but also more importantly - I know copyright history!

-- I got a seriously good chuckle at your rant..!

Now have you ever recorded a TV show at home, and then loaned the DVD copy of it to a friend to watch at their home? --- Then stop Stealing!

The DMCA is bad law..!

DANWILL: "hey battywoman (sic.) . . . with attitudes like yours, it's no wonder this country is falling apart."

Very, very nice, DANWILL.... and yet I still address you by your actual screen name. You make yourself look foolish with your name-calling and insubstantial rants and accusations. How is it a bad attitude to expect people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps; to expect people NOT to steal and then whine about the consequences; and to expect the American public not to attack others who have worked harder and smarter, with more God-given talent in some cases.... in short, NOT to exhibit the petty jealousy that you have shown, DANWILL, when others have more money and more assets than you?

Grow up, DANWILL, and stop advancing your dumb point about how others who have so much deserve to be victimized by the theft of those who have little. You do not get to pick and choose among the laws that are to be enforced.

You do not get to pick and choose among the laws that are to be enforced.

you are right about that, especially when crooked politicians get paid off to pass laws that benefit a few elite businessmen at the expense of everyone else.

as I said, you don't support a free market, you just support government mandated , artificial support for the status-quo of elite businessmen that have bigger pockets to pay off politicians with, and rely on their thuggish attorneys to protect them from their own stupid decisions.

"others who have worked harder and smarter" you have got to be kidding, they didn't work harder and smarter, they couldn't see outside of their collapsing business plans and had to rely on the government to pass laws to protect their own special interests

you are the definition of an elitist

what's next?

"let them eat cake"?

LOL

Danwill- you just don't get it, do you? People create something. They sacrifice time and effort (WORK , a word thieves such as yourself don't understand), and they create said work. They then SELL this work to others, so that the others may enjoy it. Now, according to YOU, once they create this piece of work, anyone who wants to can steal this work (or even buy a copy of it) and then make more copies to sell or give to others, therefore depriving the original creator of that piece of work of his recompense. YOU have decided just how much they can earn from that work, and the rest is free for the taking. So, if you go to work and earn a paycheck, once I decide how much of that paycheck you deserve, then I can take the rest of it and use it as I desire, hmmm? (Work with me, here. I doubt you have ever actually earned any money in the past, but I THINK you might be smart enough to actually understand the concept of working for pay.)

Let them EARN their own cake.

Yes, I am an elitist. Those who work to feed themselves, or buy the good they desire, are the elite. Those who don't are the losers. The successful work their asses off and thrive. The rest, suck the public tit, and demand a bigger tit to suck. ANY corporation that accepted a bailout is as much a loser as you are. I didn't vote to bail them out, but I sure got the "privilege" of footing a portion of the bill.

wow, it's amazing that a bunch of ignorant , corporate cronyist bootlickers are so quick to claim to know what my financial status is. ROFLMAO, you don't know jack spit about me.

Neal, are you referring to the corporate THIEVES that were selling a CD for $17 and giving the artist that actually CREATED the music 25-50 cents?

when their business model started failing, they went crying to congress to protect, not the actual creators rights, but their own corporate rights to steal from the actual creators ?

are those the "thieves that you are referring to?

I have stated plainly and openly, that I do not and have not downloaded any songs illegally, and I refused to buy anything from anyone that was a member of the RIAA because of their thuggish tactics. the simple fact is that I stopped buying music and only occasionally listen to music on the radio, and I don't have any music on my computer except a very small handful (less than one screenful for everything) of songs that I downloaded (legally) from I tunes. and I don't like Itunes since I can't use their music on anything but an apple player. I have nothing against reasonable restrictions on copying, but restrictions based on who make the player are ludicrous.

the only free software that I download is either legal, free open source, or free trials, if I like the trial, I will purchase it. the same for movies.

if I want to support an artist, then I will purchase it directly from the artist instead of letting the money-grubbing corporate drones of the RIAA get their hands on it., but for the most part, I just don't bother anymore.

furthermore, your rant about the bailout shows what an idiotic, brainwashed political stooge you are. I could care less about the actual financial companies that were bailed out, but if they were allowed to go bankrupt, then all the other companies that did nothing wrong except to have put their finances with these big wall-street banks would also have been driven into bankruptcy, what do you think the result of that would have been? the mess we are just beginning to crawl out of now would have been amplified at least fivefold, instead of 6 million lost jobs, we would be looking at 20-30 million lost jobs. that's your idea of "sound fiscal policy"? what an idiot! oh yeah , it's all because "you don't want your taxes paying for it." what a fool.

oh, and Obama and our curent congress actually created a way that would allow those "too big to fail" banks actually fail into bankruptcy without allowing all their customers to fail also, but right-wing imbeciles cried about how that was "socialism" when most of those that were don't even have the brains to spell the word, much less understand what real socialism is.

neal osborn, you are a pathetic, lying ass for accusing me of stealing, I actually play by the rules, and you are too stupid to know when you are being played.

I am so glad I chose the more lucrative career than writing based on the comments on this seed.

There is no way in he11 I could imagine surviving on that type of income when so many of you think it is A OK to steal copyrighted material.

Karen I never said in any of my comments that it was OK to steal or that it was ok to freely copy copyrighted material. (unlike what catwoman and jerk osborn tried to falsely accuse me of).

the lady in the article should pay something, but over a million dollars is obscene, especially since the artists will be lucky to get one tenth of 1% of that judgement even in the unlikely event it was paid in full and in cash, all the rest would go to line the pockets of the record executives and their attorneys

actually, she should pay it to the artists directly and then let the RIAA show just how much they are really "for the artist's rights" as they turn around and sue the artists for their 99.9% cut

no , my rants have been against fat, bloated, greedy and lazy corporations that would rather tell congress how to protect their lazy arses then to adapt and compete.

* note, not all corporations are that way, but far too many suffer the same type of bureaucratic bloat that the government does, and certain people have been well trained by the corporations to say that corporate bureaucrats are our salvation.

RE: Comment 1.56

Don't be such a judgemental j@ck@ss. For all we know from this story, she was married for 10 years and her husband left her for his secretary, or something like that. There are many avenues to single motherhood other than deciding to have a kid (or 4) without securing a husband and father first. You just don't know. And being a single mother does matter because this exhorbitant fine would be crushing to anyone, but as a single mother it crushes more than just her - it crushes her innocent children. It will interfere with her ability to provide the basic necessities to her children. Should she have thought about that before doing what thousands of others have done (not me, mind you, but thousands of others), yes. Is what she did right? No. Does she (and the other thousands) deserve consequences? sure, that is how the law is written. But the amount is utterly ridiculous. If the punishment stands, it would be best for the kids to be removed from her home, as she will be unable to ever provide for them again. Is this crime worth one losing her children? Or children losing their mother? The punishment does not fit the crime. This whole case (and this insanly judgmental thread) needs a little perspective and a healthy dose of compassion.

Her lawyers argue that she should only pay 1.00 per song but how many copies did she share out. All articles state she not only downloaded but was sharing them out. So even if you go by the logic that she only owes 1.00 per song. She should also owe 1.00 per copy of the song she gave out. If only ten copies were downloaded then 24.00 for the ones she downloaded and another 10.00 for what she shared. But if 1,000 people copied the song then she should be liable for those copies as well. Just my opinion.

The maximum damage to the industry can be calculated fairly easily. Look at her bandwidth connection. That will tell you how many songs she is capable of uploading at any one time. Multiply it for the amount of time she was running the illegal software and you know how much money she COULD have cost the industry.

At five minutes per song, a usual bandwidth upload capacity of about 40kbytes/sec, and a cost of 99c per song, that's about 1152 songs or about $1100 per day. This is the MAXIMUM she could have cost them and it assumes that she had it on 100% of the time, she wasn't using it for anything else and the person who downloaded the song would have paid for it if he couldn't get it from her. Most likely, it cost them considerably less.

I don't know if the idea of charging per song is unconstitutional, but it does seem unreasonable. She isn't running a song server in a data center, she is running a small home computer, and her ability to upload songs is severely limited. The MAXIMUM amount of money she COULD have cost the industry is related to her computer bandwidth, and has nothing to do with the number of songs on the computer.

Also keep in mind that this music is available from other sources illegally, so you can't make the argument that she is responsible for thefts in other places. You can't also blame her for other people acting illegally.

"joaking"? really? you must be joking

The recording industry has been damaged way beyond $1.5 million, just not by this one individual. It seems though as if this might be a scare tactic to stop others from illegally downloading.

She's going to have to work 5+ lifetimes to pay this off if the fine doesn't come down significantly. Too bad for her, guess she should've gone the itunes route, or the old fashioned way and go to the record store.

this fine was to send the message to other would be thiefs not to break the law, comprente'. You can not justify what she was doing - thou shalt not steal, isn't it?

Even if they are trying to send a message. It's ridiculous.

How about a class action suit on the recording industries for mastering crappy pathetic songs that millions, even billions of unexpecting consumers buy each year.

Go after the source, not the symptom. And make damn sure that every recording that anyone would want is legally and readily available from legitimate sources. A lot of people download things that they cannot get otherwise, etc. Not everyone has evil or greedy intent - like big business does!

OK...........Copyright laws are in place for a very good reason. As long as there are people, laws will be bent / broken.

Yes, she broke the law, and downloaded / pirated a few songs..

However, until such time as the entertainment industry is ready / willing to go after ALL pirates, this girl should be fined a realistic amount, with a reasonable payment schedule, and let go on her way.

This baloney of trying to make an example of her, just does not have any rhyme or reason, and cannot be justified by any stretch of imagination. Some judges / juries need a course in reality.

I agree her fine is on the ridiculous side, but she should face some sort of fine.

What they're doing seems like picking one person who made a copy of a video and then passed it around to their friends, then imposed a fine for every time someone borrowed the tape. Have they ever done this to someone who is making copies of illegally downloaded copies of illegally recorded movies?

If they really want to stop this sort of thing from happening, they need to go after the site she downloaded the music from.

Are they going after the people she passed the music on to?

These fines are outrages. I agree with PackratKing....the only person with a realistic comment in this post, the rest are idiotic

Sorry, but I've got to get up on my soapbox here - and this is from the POV of a musician. The recording industry, particularly the major record labels, is simply looking for a way to continue their monopolistic hold on music distribution. Music downloading isn't hurting the music industry, the industry is a dinosaur that tried to hold onto it's old ways for too many years and then started suing everyone because they were behind the time, technologically speaking. For years they got away with selling music on basically disposable media (LPs, tapes, even CDs) and now that those media are no longer needed they need a way to stick it to the music consumer - AND BANDS ALIKE (do some research on how much most bands actually made from CD sales). It's also interesting how now everything is about having the "rights" to the music - if that's the case would they have replaced my tapes that I left in the car and got ruined back in 1985 because I owned the "rights" to the music on them - or even allowed me to make a new recording of that music from a master tape since I owned the "rights" to it? Don't think so. This is plain and simple a last gasp from an industry that refused to open it's eyes to the path that technology was taking and now wants to get back payment for their lack of vision.

In the end, good music finds a way to the masses and the musicians are properly compensated. Some bands have offered downloads for years and got way ahead of the curve and others promote the bootlegging of their concerts because they realize that the more their music is heard, the more someone is likely to buy it or to see them in concert.

Tell me I'm full of crap, I don't care, that's the way I see this whole scenario.

Agreed, $1.5 mill is way out of proportion. You don't get sued that much for wrongful death most of the time.

Sickofidiots, you make a good point but it says in the story they have decided to go against the worst offenders. It is listed that she downloaded 1700 songs [though who knows if that makes her one of the one of the worst offenders].

That being said, how can you hold site responsible? It is simply a file sharing site, they themselves simply provide a place to sharefiles. Yes, we all know what passes through there. But to follow that logic that they are responsible, the you would have to blame the computer makers for making the computers that waere used because they gave her the means to do so, you would have to sue Mocrosoft [same reason], etc.?

Do you see the thought pattern? It simply comes down to responsability and morals. Ultimately, a person choses what they do freely, you cant blame the equipment they use.

It wouldn't matter what her fine was or is, she wouldn't pay. She is a beadbeat who looks for the easy way out. Why do you think she has 4 kids, to make sure her welfare check is big enuf to pay for her drugs. Put her in jail for 6 months or so, then force her to pay a monthly amount on a reduced fine.

and readily available from legitimate sources. A lot of people download things that they cannot get otherwise

What songs was she downloading that weren't on Itunes?

Itunes pretty much has everything and beyond. C sides that have never even seen the light of day you can get off Itunes.

How about...don't steal.

Seems pretty simple to me.

For comparison, this is the same thing as saying it's "ok" for Chinese companies to commit copyright infringement on everything we do here in the US.

They tried to settle with her twice, first for $5000 and then after the second trial for $25000. She refused both times. I wonder what she has spent in legal fees.

AmericansFirst - you're logic is flawed because of the very point you make. The operators of the file sharing site know what their site is used for and provide a means for facilitating copyright infringement. Their entire raison d'etre is to allow people to evade copyright laws.

The computer makers are shielded because of a very important Supreme Court decision from the 80s involving VCRs (actually Betamax) - same argument was made that they facilitated copyright infringement by allowing people to record TV shows and movies. In a nutshell, that case looked at the fact that there were many non-infringing uses of the technology. Here, there is no other point to many of these sites.

Well packrat king, couldn't agree more. although you shot yourself in the foot. First you don't know how many a few is and secondly they did offer her a very big break and what did she say?? No!! So feel sorry for her and help the lady out.

Wheres the outrage at former Country wide CEO Angelo Mozzillo whom STOLE $179 MILLION dollars and got a fine of $67.5 MILLION that his new Employer is paying because of special clauses in his contract?

Why dint he get fined 75,000% of the amount he stole???

1.5 mil/$20 (the cost of 1CD which is approx. 24 songs give or take)=75,000

$179 mill * 75,000= $13,425,000,000,000 that is 13 trillion 425 billion dollars

But No Angelo gets to keep over $100 million dollars in stolen money and you people want to fine this lady 1.5 million for downloading music on the internet.

IF ITS SUCH A B.F.D. MAKE IT IMPOSSIBLE TO DO!!!! THERE ARE HACKERS THAT CAN GET IN TO D.O.D. COMPS AND YOU WANNA TELL ME ITS NOT POSSIBLE TO BLOCK PEOPLE FROM DOWNLOADING COPYRIGHTED MUSIC???

WHY ISNT IT ILLEGAL FOR BANDS TO PLAY COVER SONGS WITHOUT THE PERMISSION OF THE BAND THAT ORIGINALLY WROTE IT???

I believe copyrights only last for 7 years if those songs are over 7 years old the statute of limitations has run out, maybe thats why they could only go after her for 24 of those 1700 songs..?!?!?!?

@Jack Harris

Thanks, I really wouldn't have been able to decypher what he was trying to say without your interpretation. I'm glad you posted.

It is ignorant to come up with 1.5 million for 24 songs. People have attempted homicide and paid far less. There is a great disparity in punishments for various crimes.

packrat - while I agree the fine is not reasonalbe, I have to disagree about the industry having to go after everyone or no one. Law enforcement works this way, it's called selective enforcement. This means they go after the ones they can. You cannot ticket every speeder, so you ticket the ones you can. If law enforcement or the courts must prosecute every offender that ever did anything wrong or not prosecute at all, nothing would ever get done. That being said, this is a civil torte, not a criminal one. The person (in this case the music industry) can choose who they want to sue. They don't have to sue everyone who has ever wronged them.

@guito = Copyright lasts for 70 years after the author's death, not 7 years. You might be thinking of patents (I think they still last for 20 years).

It is much easier to hack into something than to prevent people from hacking into something.

Cover bands probably are violating copyright laws, but it is a lot more palatable to the record companies for obvious reasons to have a bar band playing music that is not being professionally recorded to a few drunks on a Friday night than to allow thousands or millions of people to download songs permanently into their iPods. People that record covers of other songs usually do pay royalties.

Angelo Mozillo is a crook, I can't argue with you there, but that does not excuse this woman's behavior.

Okay, gp, you're full of crap.

Welllll, actually I agree with you one hundred percent. What I take issue with is the fact that this woman broke the law. Yeah. It's a stupid law designed to protect a bucket of bolts at the top of the food chain (Like so much other b.s.). It needs to be changed and likely won't be unless someone or someones (sorry for the grammatical outre there) fight. But this woman did break the law knowingly and wilfully. She knew she was breaking the law. She had a chance to get out of it and declined and now she wants to play poor mouth as an excuse to not pay. This is not a fight over the validity of the regulation. I have zero sympathy for this woman and it would not break my heart to see her go to jail.

I have so many friends across the full spectrum of the music industry and I have heard many arguments both for and against these regs. Not surprisingly, the higher up you go, the more likely you are to find those in favor.

guito, I don't know where you get your information but copyright extends far beyond 7 years. As long as the owner lives, the copyright is intact and they own the rights. If they pass away, their estate owns the rights for a certain number of years after that (I believe it is 75 years but I may well be mistaken) unless they continue to pay to reinstate the rights privileges. In other words, if they own it, they own it. John Fogarty cannot even sing his best known song without paying someone else for the rights to do so because an unscrupulous manager many years past has a contract that says he owns the rights and if CCR and Fogarty part company with him, he still owns the rights. That means Fogarty doesn't own his own song ... And guess what. He won't sing it. Period. Kinda sad the way the world works, huh?

Kazaa does not even own the computers you are getting the songs from. All they do is provide the software to allow others to get the music from YOUR machine. Sure, it's free software, but as they wrote it they don't HAVE to charge for it if they don't have to.

But really, why would anyone want to put software on their computers that allows ANYONE to look and see what you have on your computer. Can you imagine what else you may have picked up while you were downloading that song you thought were so cool?

Now to the point of "well, I should not be charged for the crap songs they added to the album" everyone of us has our own tastes in what is crap and what isn't. I personally don't like gangsta rap, Lady Gaga, or even Kid Rock when he thinks he is singing country music (ummm, that's country? that tune you are using came from an old Eagle rock song).

I sure hope those of you casting rocks wouldn't get cut up too bad. =]

Though I'm sure you'd be in the ER 1000 times over...

How much of the 1.5 million dollars will go to the artists and how much will go to the company and lawyers? If the artists actually got the majority of the money that might be one thing--but we know who actually gets the bulk--and it isn't the artists! I agree that she broke the law and should have consequences--but this is over the limit. The artists will be lucky to get anything at all out of this!

Guitto.

Cover bands DO legally have to pay fees for the music they play, but they pay them to ASCAP. The American Society of Composers, Authors and Publishers. They collect the fees from people who perform work written by others and then pay the royalties direct to the person who WROTE the song.

A band has rights to their recordings, but the composition or sheet music belongs to the composer.

ASCAP used to send inpectors around to bars and honky tonks to see if the band or piano player is performin copyrighted work and if they had paid a license fee to ASCAP. If not, they could demand payment or ask that they cease and desist. I don't know if they still do it that way.

The music couldn't have been that good.

As for the artists fees for singing the music and the band playing the music. That's just the cost of business. Their music so not worth more than $.10 a download and lest you buy an album for $9-$10 or more. Music just isn't worth that much money.

And I do believe this is being used as a scare tactic is well just to make an example out of.but for $1.5 million get real.

In this day and time people are suffering from foreclosures, losing their jobs, not being able to find a job, not being able to pay their electric bill ,gas bill, telephone bill, or any othe or any other necessities that are needed for daily living. These expenses are more important than the recording company's lawsuit.

I, for one, will not be all that surprised to see this ignorant, excuse-making woman move to New York to run for governor on the "Fines for Jacking Music are Too DAMN High" Party.

BMI as of June of this year were stepping up their policing of bars

CONCERNED, I really despise "poor me" attitudes like yours. Apparently you believe that because someone else in the world has talent and has more money than you do, he deserves to be victimized by theft. That is a loser of an attitude that you have there, and it fairly screams, "I have nothing and have no talent and therefore am jealous of others who are the 'haves' in this world in which my ignorance and jealousy relegate me to the realm of the 'have-nots'. I want the world to recognize me for what I am: a loser".

catwoman, how far has bootlicking gotten you?

(also known as brown-nosing)

The record industry and all artists have been damaged well beyond 1.5 million, one small example would be Aerosmith whose catalog in 1990 was worth hundreds of millions of dollars but now is worth nearly nothing because people don't need to buy the music if they can share it. How woulkd you like it if after a long hard week at work your paycheck weas given to me??

NORTH MIKE: After chastizing posters for not knowing the difference between civil and criminal law, you posted the following at the end of your comment about how this is merely a jury award in a civil case:

"What she did was wrong, but was petty theft."

C'mon, MIKE, get a grip. This is a CIVIL case. "Theft" is a CRIMINAL term.

"How woulkd you like it if after a long hard week at work your paycheck weas given to me??"

Well...that's kind of what taxes are about...at least the ones going to entitlements. I don't resent paying for medical care for old people though. Or financial aid given to students based on need. Or free education paid by taxes for those who don't want to homeschool kids or put them in private school. Or free lunches for poor kids.

I merely object to the waste or those scamming the system, as well as support for immoral things like abortion. We all live with benefits from others' efforts (past and present) and we should all put in more than we take out, like so many others have to our benefit.

Still people need to be paid for their work, before some of their money is taken for tax purposes. Nevertheless, considering the value of this woman's theft was $24, I find it hard to believe that enough people stole the songs because of her efforts to make the sum of 1.5 million dollars. That would be 62,500 people.

Even if they know all those people stole the songs, furthermore, they can fine each of them $24 as well and get all their money back! They can go after all the guilty parties instead of being lazy and going after one person who is not guilty for what the other people did after all.

Assessing each thief a reasonable penalty on top of that $24 would be fair too. Unfortunately legal folks don't seem to have any concept of reality in what they're asking for--disconnect from reality is at critical mass in the legal profession, apparently.

"Theft" is a CRIMINAL term.

Actually no, theft is a general term, most laws regarding 'theft' instead use the term LARCENY, but thanks for your concern.

NORTH MIKE, you don't know what you are talking about. "Theft" is a criminal term. "Larceny" also is defined in the criminal code of most states. "Burglary" and "robbery" also are misused by most lay people, as most people who are not in the legal field believe that burglary relates to theft.... not necessarily so. Many lay people also mistakenly refer to "robbing an ATM", which is nonsense, but they say it because they do not have understanding of the criminal code and legal definitions in most states.

The civil term you are searching for is "conversion", and it is a tort. Look it up, and learn something on a Sunday, huh?

Get off your high-horse, NORTH MIKE.

I've never joaked, not even jokingly! I hear joaking in some countries is even illegal and in other countries it requires a special license and annusl certification.

To the person who was wondering about how long patents last

20 years after the date the patent application was filed.

This is the website for the US Patent and Trademark Office:

www.uspto.gov

Here is a link to the law. I found the patent term in

http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/consolidated_laws.pdf

pg 33 - 35 U.S.C. 154a(2)

If you can't afford it don't download. If you download pay for it. I am so sick and tired of moms using their kids as an excuse to get out of bills. She should have thought about feeding her kids before she ran p the bill.

and how many laws have you broken today? ----

What if you got fined 2 million for not wearing a seatbelt?

This is a law that is way out of line with proper justice.

Denise, is your sickness and tiredness terminal?

SuzyQPA the thing is she didn't pay for them at Itunes, she stole the songs and got caught. She shared more than 1700 songs but was only prosecuted for 24. So maybe she should pay for the other 1700? This sends a message: stop stealing! Or, as I like to see it, don't get caught stealing!

Guess people will go back to recording them from the radio which in reality is no different from getting them off the net. Both results in getting the songs one wants except one way has been ruled legal and the other illegal but really what is the difference?

Even if you go by the 1700 song route I can't see fining her more than $170,000 which would be $100 a song. That would be enough to discourage people.

She is a idiot. She was given the chance to settle and took her chances in court. Now she complains about it and many of you back her? lol She could have just settled for 5k and it would have been over long ago but she decided to game the system perhaps using her poor ole me single mom to get sympathy. It did not work. And with all of this, just what is she teaching her kids? it is ok to break the law and then moan and groan about it to get out of your responsibility? She is doing a good job of showing she is an unfit mother.

In the words of Baretta- If you can't to the time, don't do the crime.

T-Bird69,
If you are listening to the radio (to record your music) it means that the radio station has paid the musician/record company for the material that you are now listening to. In addition, in the course of listening to the radio, you probably listened to a few ads, which were the ultimate source of the money that was paid. Now if you distribute that copy of the tape you made, without the ads, etc, then that is actually also illegal (actually illegal even if you distribute with the ads, but that's not the point)

So, if she stole a loaf of bread, she should get the death penalty, right? I don't know why I bother debating so many people spewing self-righteous ignorance, especially those who criticize her welfare babies when you don't know anything about it. Hasn't anyone heard, "Let the punishment fit the crime" ? I guess there will always be a significant minority who can't distinguish between a petty crime and a major felony. By that logic, if you ever got a speeding ticket, you are a criminal as bad as any rapist or murderer.

SJ: You can copy it off of programs that air the songs without any ads. Also knowing several people that work at radio stations and such most stations do NOT actually pay for the music but are given the music to play for the free advertising they get when the song is played so as I said before in reality there is no difference from copying off of a no add station or the net.

T-Bird. It's still illegal.

The radio station, commercial or subscription, has the rights to air music. (usually for free, but sometimes they have to pay.) You still do not have the rights to record it and distribute it.

As to the seatbelt analogy, you must not have done well in math. A $250 fine for not wearing a seatbelt 1700 TIMES is $425,000.

Stop trying to justify your own illegal downloads by defending this crook.

JW: Never said anything about distributing it just recording it off the radio and yes it is legal to record off the radio. I have no problem with people recording/downloading music for their own use I do not agree with doing it to make a profit off of.

Question though where did the seatbelt analogy come in at cause I know I didn't make it?

Even the rich and powerful feel entitled. Many feel they should have to pay no taxes at all. Always have always will. Comes natural to some people - rich or poor. No government needed.

everybodysmom: yep, the government made her download the songs and then share them. Why didn't the RIAA sue the government as well? I cannot stand when people say crap to try and be witty.

Anyway, she is responsible for her actions, but I think the damages are way too high.

Illegal alien scum pays no taxes but they receive all kinds of benefits from this country

This women is only guilty of one thing, thats doing what everyone else is doing. The music industry needs to change, its that simple. What a powerplay by the music industry going after a women who probably makes less then 50,000 a year. Last time I checked P diddy wasn't broke.

@TrueAmerican: Illegal alien scum?! Really? She's Native American! Pretty sure the Native Americans were here long before you.

And what the heck have illegal aliens to do with this matter?

I mean I understand an illegal alien probably is doing your wife and u are pissed off, but keep your obsession to the threads relevant to the immigration matter.

Thanks

Funny. It's my understanding that a country's people make up the government. The entitlement mentality you're referring too has grown out of the compliancy and laziness of the '60 and '70 generations. Then they passed it down to their children. As of today our hope lays with our children. Did you know that currently over the last 5 years record breaking numbers of kids are volunteering in their communities? It's a good start...

True American.

I have checked out your posts on other topics. This one has nothing to do with candy assed liberals or illegal aliens, but that seems to be your response to everything, even if it is usually off topic. This one is about a woman who was caught stealing. Caught! Stealing! It isn't a complicated issue. Does the punishment fit the crime? Perhaps not unless you consider that for every one who gets caught, there are countless others who don't. There was nothing in this article to suggest that she was a candy assed liberal, or an illegal alien. BTW, I am a candy assed liberal. Want to stop by for a taste some day? I promise I won't tell your wife.

I sure hope you're not teaching your kids your idiocy, everybodysmom...

LOL @ Rezsia... And I quote, " The entitlement mentality you're referring too has grown out of the compliancy and laziness of the '60 and '70 generations."

I believe the word you were looking for is COMPLACENCY, which you would have properly used if you were not, yourself in fact, complacent. Try dictionary.com next time...

@HybridSnake... Rezsia could have been trying to say that the 60's and 70's generations were "compliant" in being lazy. Maybe someone requested that these generations be lazy and they were "complying" with that request. I agree with you Snake, complacency is a terrible thing. So is illiteracy, which is why becoming complacent in your studies, Rezsia, is unacceptable. Dictionary.com is indeed a wonderful resource. Spell check might help Rezsia also. Snake, you are a funny individual. LMAO!!

You people need to quit @!$%#ing bitching, god damn.

@Inm8guard and @HybridSnake - Thanks for both of your critiques, but this is a discussion board. If you do not have anything to add to the topic of discussion then why do you even post?

reszia, while I agree that having a new generation of volunteers is a good start, the "topic of discussion" was an obscene and ridiculous judgement for a lady using a program that not only downloaded copyrighted music, but also made it available to others. Nothing like criticizing people for being off-topic, when you are off topic yourself, hmm?

it's doubtful that the person even knew that her computer made those songs available.

lol!!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

See! Carly be knowing!

Sure you will... NOT!

Say What! Sit your Twister Ass Down!

Nope and you can't to anything about it... pfffttttt.

"If somebody copy my @!$%#, I'm cutting their ass!" (Copied AND pasted!)

Oooooh, I'm trembling with fear!! Btw, I sleep with the window open... I'll be waiting for your visit. ROFLMAO

My guess is that a $2500 fine is just as big this lady as $1.5 million -- she won't/can't pay either amount.

no, you don't understand. This ruling was to teach a lesson on pirating over the airways. I'm sure you wouldn't say what you said if you were the victim. You can not justify the crime being committed by this single mother!

I think she should pay 1.00 per song + all the legal fees for everyone involved. She did break the law.

They offered to settle for $5ooo but she refused. Now she's complaining that the settlement is too much. Should've taken what was offered!

would have been a good idea, but she probably would have declined that too. Since she decided to take it to court however, they now have to pay the lawyers involved and I'm sure it cost more than $5000 just for the lawyers

Yep, she should have settled... but that would have limited her fifteen minutes of fame.

Her first fine was $5000.00. She choose to appeal that instead of making payments. She pirated and shared 1700 songs!!

The $2,500 dollar fine sounds more fitting to the crime. I agree that she should have to pay more than the $1.00 iTunes charges otherwise she isn't paying the consequences. Why are they wasting their time taking this to court anyway? She has openly stated she would file bankruptcy if she has to. The debt will be forgiven anyway. I think what would be more appropriate is to have to pay a small fine and by speaking at middle schools and high schools about why this is wrong. I personally have had to pay over and over again for songs I really like because the record, cassette, cd, dvd or any other format eventually gets worn out or they change the format of how it is distributed.

The entertainment industry is making lots of money on that, but they are losing money on the things that are truly pirated and reproduced multiple times so that someone else can sell them and make money off of it. Let's go after those who sell the items that are reproduced. No one should have to pay a fine for sharing a cd, movie or book. That is free advertising for the industry.

1700 songs... I most definitely do not feel sorry for her, not one tiny bit. I say she goes to prison--and sooner rather than later, that way her children have a chance to be influenced by someone with some character and sense of responsibility.

There was originally a settlement offer of $5,000 but she chose to go to court. I'm sure if she'd taken the original offer, they would have allowed her to make payments. But I can't imagine any normal person being able to EVER pay $1.5 million.

She should pay 1.00 per song PLUS a fine on each song. Otherwise, every legal downloader will start downloading illegally. If there's no penalty, why not?

Jeff :she is teaching her kids not to follow laws that are obtuse and morally retarded which in my opinion is a good thing.

Sj23: the radio may have paid for the right to play the songs but they didnt pay for the right of you recording them. so there is NO difference from recording off the radio and downloading off the internet.

Vikki how does $5,000 turn into $1,500,000 legitimately???

"no, you don't understand. This ruling was to teach a lesson on pirating over the airways. I'm sure you wouldn't say what you said if you were the victim. You can not justify the crime being committed by this single mother!"

Have you ever thought about it from the perspective of one of your family members being in the place of this woman? If so, I'm sure you wouldn't say what you said in that situation. It's not about justifying the crime but rather justifying the insanely disproportionate and unrealistic amount of compensation being sought and a person and her family's life being utterly ruined over the matter.

The punishment should fit the crime, and if you've ever done anything illegal, you probably would want to be shown a bit of mercy rather than have your entire life ruined even if you had a faily lame attitude at the time.

Her life would not have been ruined if she did not UPLOAD 1700 songs for others to steal. Her life would not have been ruined if she would have accepted the $5,000 settlement demand.

I seriously doubt the RIAA is out for a pound of flesh. It has made its point, and would probably still accept a modest settlement, especially now that it has this headline. So, her life would not be ruined if she scrapes together whatever excess cash she can beg or borrow.

Maybe she can sue her lawyers for malpractice and assign her claim against them to the RIAA. Maybe all of you who are so sympathetic to her can send $1 or $10 or $100 to help her out. She isn't getting any of my money or sympathy.

Why don't they take their songs off the internet and then no one can steal them. They know what people do when their songs are on these sites. Why not make it a membership to enter a site to download music and then they will know exactly who downloads and how much.

Hooray for your comment, it's unbelievable sometimes what people who hurt others, especially children and the elderly, get away with such little consequence.

It is amazing how our justice system works. The less you do the more you pay, the more you do the less you pay, how fair is that. There are so many people that download music, how many other users used the program she did? Are they all in court? Are they all being sued?

So Biddey,
Seeing as you are are a constitutional expert and all, would you mind sharing just which amendment of the constitution this violates? Ya know...for all of our benefit

I know I would argue the Due Process Clause, that was how the punitive damages were reduced in the Exxon case. There are separation of powers issues here, though - Congress gave the courts the ability to award certain amounts of statutory damages.

As noted in my numerous posts above, I have zero sympathy for this woman, so that may be tainting my analysis, but I think she is likely going to have a tough time persuading the 6th Cir., and especially the Supreme Court, that the award should be reduced.

Just my two cents. 97 more and I can buy a song on iTunes.

Pardon me - I meant the 8th Cir.

Amount of money has nothing to do with it. If the Courts say it's legal then it's Constitutional for now.

Why doesn't she just end it and file for bankruptcy now? Why keep going through this and pulling your kids into it.

They should just pull all this music off the internet if these people think they can charge this kind of fine. Or change the law as with any other thing on the internet if it's there it belongs to the community. It is no different when a person picks out a paragraph in a story and posts it in another location. Just as your opinion here can be repeated anywhere. Worry about your copyright laws in China.

If it's such a crime forget the excessive fines and give her 90 days in jail.