WTF
- Thread starter scorpio01169
- Start date
Loren Littlejohn
Lover of all boobage.
Soundlurker
Member
- Nov 19, 2005
- 3,730
- 0
- 36
Loren Littlejohn
Lover of all boobage.
Actually after getting a better article, I realize this is that woman (single mom) that used Kazaa downloaded a shit load of crappy ubber poppy songs and got nailed for a little over $200k. IIRC that was like back in 07!
Appealed (of course) and here we are over a million dollars later (serves the stupid cunt right).
People that use lime wire, kazaa, torrents etc... for the distribution of illegal intellectual property deserve bankruptcy.
This idiot could have settled out of court for a FUCK TON less.
Appealed (of course) and here we are over a million dollars later (serves the stupid cunt right).
People that use lime wire, kazaa, torrents etc... for the distribution of illegal intellectual property deserve bankruptcy.
This idiot could have settled out of court for a FUCK TON less.
well at 200k who wouldn't appeal. even in 07. yeah she fucked up, but they know she can't pay that. so let's put her and her kids on the streets, instead of taking her pc from her and restricting her from owning a pc or fucking with one for a probationary period. I am sure this action against her scared the fuck out of her and she may or may not do the shit again. but maybe she wont learn her lesson like this bitch http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_odd_bunny_lady. women are losing their fucking minds
Loren Littlejohn
Lover of all boobage.
Maybe I'm nuts but I just don't think a jury would come back with a guilty verdict in a case like this if she was innocent.
And like I said, she had the opportunity (according to what I read in another better written article) to settle for thousands and thousands less, like under 10k kind of money.
But no she dragged it out in court, trying to get away with it and got fucked. Serves her right.
And like I said, she had the opportunity (according to what I read in another better written article) to settle for thousands and thousands less, like under 10k kind of money.
But no she dragged it out in court, trying to get away with it and got fucked. Serves her right.
Erkan
mr-walker.bandcamp
What I wonder is, how do they arrive at the final amount of money to sue a person on? If those songs cost 99 cents each, does that mean 80000 people actually downloaded each and every song, which justifies this case, or are they just looking for a quick way to make money as soon as someone has fucked up?
I'm not saying she's innocent, just that the amount to pay seems rediculous. How are they going to get their money from her, unless she is rich? Atleast people will be scared for a few days now, then resume their downloading again
I'm not saying she's innocent, just that the amount to pay seems rediculous. How are they going to get their money from her, unless she is rich? Atleast people will be scared for a few days now, then resume their downloading again
STINNETT
Bad / Nationwide
The article doesn't say, but certainly the fine is for sharing the music and not simply for downloading it.
It doesn't make sense to fine somebody so heavily for stealing basically 24 dollars.
But if she was giving that music away to everyone else...I can see a hefty fine. Not $80,000 per song, which is insane, but a hefty fine none the less.
It doesn't make sense to fine somebody so heavily for stealing basically 24 dollars.
But if she was giving that music away to everyone else...I can see a hefty fine. Not $80,000 per song, which is insane, but a hefty fine none the less.
I never said she was innocent, what I am saying is make her pay for the songs she stole and maybe a $1000.00 fine. but fuck. let me tell you how this will work for her...they will make this judgment against her and they will garnish the shit out of her pay for life. any moneys that she makes more than her paycheck from work, they will take. and when she files her taxes (and she has kids so she will get good money) they will take that. she will then. have to file bankrupt and they will liquidate all her assets. leaving her in an empty home other than a couch and a dinning room table and beds.
-Gavin-
Gavornator
Lets do the math...
24x songs... say pop songs under 3 mins = 4mb in average size.
1x song = 0.99c
Total of 23.76 in lost revenue for HER download.
So if one purchase loses 99c revenue.. to be fined 80k means she shared each song 80, 000 times.
So, back to 4mb a song... the bandwidth used on sharing ONE song 80, 000 times is 320000mb = 312.5gb
312.5gb x 24 = 7.5TB
You honestly think she shared 7.5tb worth of 24x pop songs?
No.
Thus, 1.9ml fine is totally unjust and ruins any crediability in the claim they have.
Yes, she's an idiot... but this is insane to think she had 7.5TERABYTES of kazaa bandwidth used... in 2 years....
By acknowledging that this fine is WAY ABOVE AND BEYOND losses incurred... one can only decude that the claimant is in this to make a massive buck and not to actually recoup losses.
Boom, baby!
24x songs... say pop songs under 3 mins = 4mb in average size.
1x song = 0.99c
Total of 23.76 in lost revenue for HER download.
So if one purchase loses 99c revenue.. to be fined 80k means she shared each song 80, 000 times.
So, back to 4mb a song... the bandwidth used on sharing ONE song 80, 000 times is 320000mb = 312.5gb
312.5gb x 24 = 7.5TB
You honestly think she shared 7.5tb worth of 24x pop songs?
No.
Thus, 1.9ml fine is totally unjust and ruins any crediability in the claim they have.
Yes, she's an idiot... but this is insane to think she had 7.5TERABYTES of kazaa bandwidth used... in 2 years....
By acknowledging that this fine is WAY ABOVE AND BEYOND losses incurred... one can only decude that the claimant is in this to make a massive buck and not to actually recoup losses.
Boom, baby!
fines are not based on what's being charged for the song Gavin.... so your math is invalid. Are parking fines based on how long you were at the parking meter without time on it? nope. doesn't work that way anywhere in life and never will, because if that were the case the deterrent factor would not be strong enough. Who wouldn't try to get away with parking without feeding the meter if the only penalty for getting caught was that you'd have to pay exactly what you would have paid had you been honest from the start?
And while the parking meter analogy is a good one it doesn't cover it all.. because with parking at meters without paying, you are only actually costing the city the money they could have earned off honest drivers for the time you are actually at the meter.... but with songs and movies, the files are continually copied and spread like wildfire... so the fines are not what they are in order to compensate on a one-to-one basis; they are , in part. damages for the sharing aspect... but primarily meant as a deterrent.
You ever try to argue a fine with a parking enforcement officer? once they start writing that ticket it's $35, doesn't matter if you show up 5 seconds after your time expires with a handful of change for the meter..... you're gonna pay $35 for that five seconds. how's that fair? how's that commensurate to the "offense"? it's not... it's a deterrent... just like every other fine.
and yeah, she did have a chance to settle, but clearly everyone involved on both sides knows that she'll never in her life be able to pay that fine.... she'll have to file for bankruptcy protection... and that's what bankruptcy is peeps.... a protection, albeit one that comes with the baggage that your credit is screwed for seven years. So in the end all she'll pay is the fees for filing, her lawyer fees, and seven years of not being able to get a Best Buy credit card. not so bad compared to 1.9 million.... and if she was really poor to start with, maybe even worth it to her to avoid paying $10K. basically she'll be out a couple grand and be inconvenienced for several years, and the other side will collect nothing or very little from her... and they knew that going in, and are fine with it... it's the deterrent factor, that's what they want to promote, and rightly so.
And while the parking meter analogy is a good one it doesn't cover it all.. because with parking at meters without paying, you are only actually costing the city the money they could have earned off honest drivers for the time you are actually at the meter.... but with songs and movies, the files are continually copied and spread like wildfire... so the fines are not what they are in order to compensate on a one-to-one basis; they are , in part. damages for the sharing aspect... but primarily meant as a deterrent.
You ever try to argue a fine with a parking enforcement officer? once they start writing that ticket it's $35, doesn't matter if you show up 5 seconds after your time expires with a handful of change for the meter..... you're gonna pay $35 for that five seconds. how's that fair? how's that commensurate to the "offense"? it's not... it's a deterrent... just like every other fine.
and yeah, she did have a chance to settle, but clearly everyone involved on both sides knows that she'll never in her life be able to pay that fine.... she'll have to file for bankruptcy protection... and that's what bankruptcy is peeps.... a protection, albeit one that comes with the baggage that your credit is screwed for seven years. So in the end all she'll pay is the fees for filing, her lawyer fees, and seven years of not being able to get a Best Buy credit card. not so bad compared to 1.9 million.... and if she was really poor to start with, maybe even worth it to her to avoid paying $10K. basically she'll be out a couple grand and be inconvenienced for several years, and the other side will collect nothing or very little from her... and they knew that going in, and are fine with it... it's the deterrent factor, that's what they want to promote, and rightly so.
Erkan
mr-walker.bandcamp
Yeah of course James, breaking the law has a static cost as you state with your parking meter example but it's just ridiculously funny when they sue random Johns and Janes for millions of dollars for a handful of songs.
Anyway, what I was honestly asking out of curiosity is how they arrive at that number. Do they actually do intense calculations or do they just pull a random high number and go with it? How does it work?
Anyway, what I was honestly asking out of curiosity is how they arrive at that number. Do they actually do intense calculations or do they just pull a random high number and go with it? How does it work?
STINNETT
Bad / Nationwide
My guess is it's totally arbitrary. Probably pulled out of somebody's ass and then tripled for more impact.
jrt12
Member
couple quick things:
1. bankruptcy stays on your record for the rest of your life. yes, some things drop off after seven years, but it does "go on your permanent record". remember when that phrase used to be scary as kids? but employment records, school loans for your children, etc, always ask if you have EVER filed. and yes, background checks will show it, even after 10 years or whatever.
2. she didnt appeal the first decision, the judge ordered a retrial because of something he screwed up.
3. now this woman has ZERO incentive to ever work a day in her life, and just live off welfare and be a leach to society. great, thats just what we need
1. bankruptcy stays on your record for the rest of your life. yes, some things drop off after seven years, but it does "go on your permanent record". remember when that phrase used to be scary as kids? but employment records, school loans for your children, etc, always ask if you have EVER filed. and yes, background checks will show it, even after 10 years or whatever.
2. she didnt appeal the first decision, the judge ordered a retrial because of something he screwed up.
3. now this woman has ZERO incentive to ever work a day in her life, and just live off welfare and be a leach to society. great, thats just what we need
-Gavin-
Gavornator
Agreed 100%... However if you got fined a couple million for not paying parking tickets or some other tiny misdemeanor then the logic does apply.
I am not defending her, the woman is clearly an idiot... Just 19k would more acceptable and understandable... not 1.9 mill...
That's excessive.
Plus, if they fined 19k, they might actually stand a chance of getting it.
Erkan
mr-walker.bandcamp
^
Exactly. It feels like all they do with these gigantic sue-cases is putting more people to leach on society's welfare, as jrt12 said. 19k dollars can be payed off, but when we're talking about millions of dollars... well, it works on paper but not so good in reality.
Anyway, one thing did come out of it I guess; she will probably never ever dare to download anything ever again.
Exactly. It feels like all they do with these gigantic sue-cases is putting more people to leach on society's welfare, as jrt12 said. 19k dollars can be payed off, but when we're talking about millions of dollars... well, it works on paper but not so good in reality.
Anyway, one thing did come out of it I guess; she will probably never ever dare to download anything ever again.
Erik Monsonis
Member
That's just inhumane, for fuck's sake... 1.9 millions for downloading 24 songs?? Excuse me but that's just retarded.
there's always another way to spin it...
... and no matter which way it's spun the point is still missed.. it's about being a deterrent, not getting money from this woman. they know they won't get any, and they don't care.
and i do have some experience with bankruptcies.. my Mother and Stepfather have been married 20 years and have gone bankrupt twice (yes they are THAT bad with money), and both are now done, clear of their records, and they each have multiple credit cards again with combined limits over $20K... same with my sister who is 38... went bankrupt at 30, and at 37 was already rolling in new credit and bought a house. sorry, some vestige of the filing may well stay "visible" to creditors, but it does NOT end your financial life, nor ruin you in any way.... unless you don't straighten up your act in the seven years.
finally, no the amount is not arbitrary... it's a set rate per song... i think movies are $250, 000 each, maybe even more by now. chew on that a minute. rant and rave and call it unfair all you want.... this is the way it is.
this woman will never see a day in jail, she'll file for bankruptcy protection, lawyers will go over her finances, tell her what she gets to keep and what she has to sell.... then no creditors can bother her or demand more than the court alloted them.. and in seven years she'll be rolling in Credit Card and Mortgage offers.... and she'll likely never share songs over a network again.
right/wrong/fair/unfair... we can rant about those issues for everything under the sun, literally every law ever written.... there's always something to bitch about not being fair from someone's perspective.
this is the law, it's not going to change for you just cuz you are indignant about it... and it's there for a reason. you can arugue until you're blue in the face about whether or not it's effective, it's irrelevant. personally i don't think the death penalty is an effective deterrent for murder... but unless you wanna go become a lawyer/politician and try to make a change, get over it.
Erik Monsonis
Member
Yeah, well, after you mentioned that about your family, It makes me remind I've been on the exact same situation for the last 8 years, and life is not gonna end (and we had to pay way higher numbers) cuz of a sue, so I got your point.
jrt12
Member
exactly right.... punitive damages are meant to be a deterrent. the $1.9 million is meant to scare the hell out of anyone so they'll think twice before clicking on that download
Similar threads
