Minnesota woman doesn't plan to pay $1.5M for illegal music sharing

A Minnesota woman ordered to pay a recording industry trade group $1.5 million for illegally sharing music online doesn't plan to pay those damages as her attorneys continue to argue the amount is unconstitutional, she said Thursday. Full Story
First Prev
of 2
Next Last
The Warden

Maple Grove, MN

#1 Nov 5, 2010
The value of most MP3 downloads is $.99. In this case the court is assessing a fine of over a thousand dollars a song for the 1400 on her hard drive and many of those she owned a purchased copy. But, the RIAA is only pursuing payment for 24 songs at a penalty of $625,000.00 a song! Really? And this is not excessive? This has to be one of the most despicable forms of corporate and judicial abuse on planet earth.........
Hmmmm

Minneapolis, MN

#2 Nov 5, 2010
What an injustice - why is this ONE woman being charged when this is common behavior? The fines are excessive. This is just ridiculous.
Tom Emmer

Minneapolis, MN

#3 Nov 5, 2010
I'm gonna personnally see to it this women never sees the light of day! Record companies need profits so they can develop new talent with nice haircuts and flood radio stations with similar sounding drivel!

Since: Apr 09

St. Paul, Minnesota

#4 Nov 5, 2010
Could've settled for $5,000 but didn't? Great legal advice there honey.

The punishment seems excessive, but don't do the crime if you can't do the time. If she'd never stolen that music and shared it she wouldn't be in this mess.

RIAA is just looking to make an example out of her, they don't need the money. For the few people they catch, millions are getting away with it.
MARK DEPARTMENT STORE

Saint Paul, MN

#5 Nov 5, 2010
Tom Emmer wrote:
I'm gonna personnally see to it this women never sees the light of day! Record companies need profits so they can develop new talent with nice haircuts and flood radio stations with similar sounding drivel!
I think she should also be taxed more any one fined that much has to be rich and I want to tax the rich.

Since: Apr 08

Twin Cities

#6 Nov 5, 2010
I'd be really curious to know which 24 songs she was fined for.
Good enough for now

Minneapolis, MN

#7 Nov 5, 2010
There's not a chance in hell this woman could ever pay $1.5M for anything. She'll probably be lucky to earn that in a life time. RIAA knows full well she can't pay it. It doesn't matter if she does/doesn't intend to pay them. She can't. To allow RIAA to make an example of this woman to the extent that they have, it's gone way too far. They should be more concerned about the $$$'s they're going to lose from potential customers. I sure as hell will never download their music. If I did, I sure as heck wouldn't share with anyone.
Zips

Minneapolis, MN

#8 Nov 5, 2010
What's up with the juries. Stupid is as stupid does.
dum dums

Cook, MN

#9 Nov 5, 2010
i am so tired of the feed my children excuse. maybe someone as irresponisble as you shouldn't have 4 children. my guess is they all have different fathers too. you are the reason there are so many people who rely on government aid and the rest of us have to continue to pay for it.
CommentsAreFunny

San Francisco, CA

#10 Nov 5, 2010
The Warden wrote:
The value of most MP3 downloads is $.99. In this case the court is assessing a fine of over a thousand dollars a song for the 1400 on her hard drive and many of those she owned a purchased copy. But, the RIAA is only pursuing payment for 24 songs at a penalty of $625,000.00 a song! Really? And this is not excessive? This has to be one of the most despicable forms of corporate and judicial abuse on planet earth.........
It isn't about downloading songs, its about letting other people download them from your computer/ip address. She may have downloaded thousands or more, but the RIAA can only sue her for ones that they were able to prove they downloaded from her location.

“Wher's dem turkey necks?”

Since: Dec 08

Palm Desert, CA

#11 Nov 5, 2010
What I don't get is she guilty of downloading songs that she found on the internet or is she guilty of openly sharing what she had downloaded?

I also don't quite get why a jury would find her guilty of downloading music when it was not her who posted the songs on the internet for anyone to use in the first place.

The music industry should have gone after all the file-sharing service's initially and shut them down first and not individuals who used the free service.

The music industry will never collect one dime from that woman. She will be ordered to pay that amount and then will file personal bankruptcy which will release her from her debt, hopefully.
Former Eastsider

Saint Paul, MN

#12 Nov 5, 2010
She claims it is extortion and the greedy corporation is to blame. If I understand it correctly, it was a jury who awarded the claim and not the corporation. Maybe if more of these kind of awards were done for various other crimes, some of the criminal activity would stop. Somebody can drive drunk and kill someone else in an accident and they get 5 years. If the penalty was more severe like maybe 25 or 30 years, some of that would stop. Whether you like it or not, it is illegal to do what she did and it sounds like she is defying the judicial system by saying "i am just not going to pay". She should have worried about her kids before she illegally did this.
Jason

Minneapolis, MN

#13 Nov 5, 2010
While the fines seem excessive, she cannot fall back on the claim that it should only be $24 being that it would have been that much if she used Itunes to do it legally.

The problem is that she DID NOT do it legally, she also did this with 1700 titles.

The whole feed and clothe my kids excuse doesn't fly, maybe instead of paying a monthly bill for internet, she should lose it and apply that to taking care of her kids as well.

It's another case of a person being broke that thinks they are entitled to do what they want.
jpocali

Minneapolis, MN

#14 Nov 5, 2010
Why are people never concerned about their children when they are committing the crime? Why do they think that because they have ability to breed it gives them more rights than those without children?
Walter M

Saint Paul, MN

#15 Nov 5, 2010
870girl wrote:
Could've settled for $5,000 but didn't? Great legal advice there honey.
The punishment seems excessive, but don't do the crime if you can't do the time. If she'd never stolen that music and shared it she wouldn't be in this mess.
RIAA is just looking to make an example out of her, they don't need the money. For the few people they catch, millions are getting away with it.
It was $5,000 per song. I know it wasn't written well (big surprise). So more like $120,000 total.

I'm sure she would have taken the $5,000 total settlement, if that were the bottom line.
shut the front door

United States

#16 Nov 5, 2010
Jason wrote:
While the fines seem excessive, she cannot fall back on the claim that it should only be $24 being that it would have been that much if she used Itunes to do it legally.
The problem is that she DID NOT do it legally, she also did this with 1700 titles.
The whole feed and clothe my kids excuse doesn't fly, maybe instead of paying a monthly bill for internet, she should lose it and apply that to taking care of her kids as well.
It's another case of a person being broke that thinks they are entitled to do what they want.
How do you know that she doesn't use the internet for school or work? Quit being so quick to judge; being asked to pay $1.5M and a $40-60/month internet bill isn't really even comparable...wouldn't you agree? You have no idea what her circumstances are.

Yes, she should have accepted the $5,000 offer, but I'm guessing that is her lawyers fault.
SeekerOfTruth

Phoenix, AZ

#17 Nov 5, 2010
Of course she won't pay a fine. She has already proven that she is a liar and a thief, why change now? Put those kids in foster homes and lock her up.
joke

San Francisco, CA

#18 Nov 5, 2010
Punishment should fit the crime. I've seen violent crimes that weren't penalized anywhere near what this woman is dealing with. Such a joke. I guess when your industry hasn'[t produced anyhting of quality in 10-15 years you get desperate for revenue.
REAP

Minneapolis, MN

#19 Nov 5, 2010
you realize when people complain and say "you're ripping off the artist...you're stealing"...you're really stealing from the corporation that owns the artist...that artist in question was ALREADY paid for their work....classic...
qina

River Falls, WI

#20 Nov 5, 2010
SeekerOfTruth wrote:
Of course she won't pay a fine. She has already proven that she is a liar and a thief, why change now? Put those kids in foster homes and lock her up.
Yeah that's a bright response. Let's lock people up and create more parentless families b/c someone owes $1.5 million. That'll take care of our problems in society.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker
First Prev
of 2
Next Last

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Brainerd Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Minnesota veteran treats service dog incident a... Jul '14 Navy Guy 1
Debate: Gay Marriage - Brainerd, MN (Jan '12) Jul '14 sherry 15
looking for alicia moe Jun '14 looking for alici... 1
Judge approves forfeiture of car, despite not g... May '14 David Shipp 1
Little Falls: Fund established for families of ... (Dec '12) Apr '14 UNKNOWN NAME 4
looking for biological father... (Mar '14) Mar '14 amy 1
Lakes Bee scheduled March 6 (Mar '14) Mar '14 Janet Schofield 1
Brainerd Dating
Find my Match

Brainerd Jobs

Brainerd People Search

Addresses and phone numbers for FREE

Brainerd News, Events & Info

Click for news, events and info in Brainerd

Personal Finance

Mortgages [ See current mortgage rates ]