cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
Nice to know someone can be fined $670,000 for stealing two CD's. Seriously, if they are going to set fines they should compare to real world damages. This amount is way over the top.
Judge refuses to change $675,000 fine in music downloading case
- Thread starter Shawn Knight
- Start date
Camikazi
Posts: 982 +339
You missed a 0 it's $675,000.
Regardless, the fine should not be anywhere near that high.
Gross Vehicular Homicide, which is usually a DUI with gross negligence, is a felony that has an assumptive bail of $50,000. It is penal code violation 191.5
Voluntary manslaughter is a felony and a violation of penal code 192a. The assumptive bail is $60,000.
Involuntary manslaughter is a violation of penal code 192b and has an assumptive bail of $25,000.
Manslaughter caused by driving a vehicle with gross negligence (but not a DUI) is a violation of penal code 192c1 and has an assumptive bail of $50,000.
Vehicular homicide, which is a DUI without gross negligence, has an assumptive bail of $50,000 and is a violation of penal code 192c3.
Manslaughter with a vessel is violation of penal code 1922.5 and can be either a felony or a misdemeanor. Assumptive bail is $50,000.
People who endanger lives and kill people can get off by paying around $50k. You download 31 songs and you pay $700k. Of course stealing is much worse than endangering the lives(or the killing) of others... right? This is just another example of corporate bullies abusing their power.
Think about it this way, $700k can destroy a person's life. For a college student, his credit will be destroyed so he probably won't be able to finish their education. Then he'll spend years paying off his debt(and that's only if he manages to get a decent paying job). I don't know how bankruptcy works, but I'm sure he'll spend a good portion of his life paying off debt. He was stupid and he should have payed the ridiculous fine, but doesn't deserve having to pay off a mountain of debt. He downloaded 31 songs. Imagine if you stole a candy bar and had to pay $20k.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
You missed how the fine was dropped to 67K to be more manageable and then raised again to the original fine.
Tygerstrike
Posts: 827 +93
@Zecias
Your are partially correct. Every instance you have quoted is a CRIMINAL case. This is a CIVIL case. Same courtroom, different section. There are major differences between criminal and civil. Youre talking bail. This is a civil litigation. Each and every instance you have pointed out WILL have two parts. The first being criminal the second being civil. I need point no farther then OJ Simpson. He was aquitted on criminal charges but still had to face civil litigation for wrongful death.
Your are partially correct. Every instance you have quoted is a CRIMINAL case. This is a CIVIL case. Same courtroom, different section. There are major differences between criminal and civil. Youre talking bail. This is a civil litigation. Each and every instance you have pointed out WILL have two parts. The first being criminal the second being civil. I need point no farther then OJ Simpson. He was aquitted on criminal charges but still had to face civil litigation for wrongful death.
I agree with some of the things you say. I just wonder if the theft was 31 CD's from a retail store if he would have been punished to the tune of $675,000. In some countries he could have his hands cut off or issued the death penalty. Sure he may well have known what he was doing was illegal, but the punishment should always fit the crime. Ruining a young man's financial future with possible bankruptcy over stealing a couple of songs. That doesn't sound like justice to me, more like being made a public example of.
Tygerstrike
Posts: 827 +93
@Matric
Once again the amount this person has to pay is because it is Punative Damages. 31 songs is prolly all they could prove w/o a shadow of a doubt. Yes it is a ton of cash. But the gentleman had the opportunity to play by the rules and did not. 675k as a fine is a lot better then 10years in jail. As I remember the copyright laws for movies its 25k plus 5years in jail. So realistically this guy is getting off light.
Now just because this person has a judgement against him for 675k, doesnt mean the ppl will get that money. Most times ppl just file for bankruptcy and clear that debt. He doesnt have to pay it, but it is on his permanent record. His job prospects will definatly know about his piracy and ruling when they do a background check. So even if he doesnt have to pay 675k, he will prolly be flipping burgers till he dies.
Once again the amount this person has to pay is because it is Punative Damages. 31 songs is prolly all they could prove w/o a shadow of a doubt. Yes it is a ton of cash. But the gentleman had the opportunity to play by the rules and did not. 675k as a fine is a lot better then 10years in jail. As I remember the copyright laws for movies its 25k plus 5years in jail. So realistically this guy is getting off light.
Now just because this person has a judgement against him for 675k, doesnt mean the ppl will get that money. Most times ppl just file for bankruptcy and clear that debt. He doesnt have to pay it, but it is on his permanent record. His job prospects will definatly know about his piracy and ruling when they do a background check. So even if he doesnt have to pay 675k, he will prolly be flipping burgers till he dies.
Being a Canadian I sometimes wonder about our laws and the people who make them, I figure they must have been looked in a small NON-VENTILATED room with a huge open tub of model glue. That could be the only way that some of these laws are conceived then passed. Then I read a story such as this one, and I realize that things here aren't so bad after all. The judge in this case is so far out into the Stratosphere with his/her ruling that what should happen is the judge needs to be removed from the position of power over people and have a serious reality check done, some time in the asylum would also be HIGHLY RECOMMENDED. Just FREAKING CRAZY!!!
G
Guest
You are trying to compare a bail with a fine, different items altogether (and people who pay bail haven't "got off"!)
G
Guest
okay, now, let us do the math.. $675000 for 31 songs, means each song is priced roughly $21800.. whhattt the f*ck??
then it argued that the damages were unconstitutional and excessive, so, the judge overseeing the trial agreed and damages were reduced to a much more manageable like.. $67500 that means $2180 per song.. (still) whaatt the fu*k??
now, if we buy all the song from a shop, let say each cd contain about 15 songs, so, in total you must buy 2 CDs with cost about $100...
where's the justice? what happen to the system?
then it argued that the damages were unconstitutional and excessive, so, the judge overseeing the trial agreed and damages were reduced to a much more manageable like.. $67500 that means $2180 per song.. (still) whaatt the fu*k??
now, if we buy all the song from a shop, let say each cd contain about 15 songs, so, in total you must buy 2 CDs with cost about $100...
where's the justice? what happen to the system?
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
What system, there never has been a system that worked for everyone.
G
Guest
if you were saying:
"guys, this is 'justice'"
and still resist "THAT IS THE COST THIS PERSON HAS TO PAY BECAUSE HE WENT TO TRIAL!"
and then fined $675000 for downloading 31 songs, later the fine was reduced-to-a-more-manageable as $67500.
..well, where is the 'justice'? all I can see only the 'law' with 'severe punishment beyond all reason'.
What we want is we (hopefully) can reach the 'justice' through the law and system as instrument.. but the law and system itself don't guarantee the 'justice' itself..
"guys, this is 'justice'"
and still resist "THAT IS THE COST THIS PERSON HAS TO PAY BECAUSE HE WENT TO TRIAL!"
and then fined $675000 for downloading 31 songs, later the fine was reduced-to-a-more-manageable as $67500.
..well, where is the 'justice'? all I can see only the 'law' with 'severe punishment beyond all reason'.
What we want is we (hopefully) can reach the 'justice' through the law and system as instrument.. but the law and system itself don't guarantee the 'justice' itself..
Camikazi
Posts: 982 +339
So in other words the fine is 675,000 and he still missed a zero
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
I don't have time for your games, the fine was dropped to 67,500 making it more manageable and then overturned and set back to 675,000. So no he didn't miss a 0, you misinterpreted his comment.So in other words the fine is 675,000 and he still missed a zero
Carleton Wu
Posts: 19 +1
If downloading songs illegally is like stealing, the penalty should be no greater than if you stole 2 CDs from your local music store.
Zoltan Head
Posts: 245 +27
Yeah, but it isn't simply stealing, it's infringement of intellectual property, inter alia, so the parallels are limited.
Tygerstrike
Posts: 827 +93
Once again ppl, it is Punative Damages. Its so high because he went to trial. Juries tend to award higher Punative Damages. Note: Punative. Look it up!!! They basically give these high fines as a way to ensure that the individual will NEVER do it again.
@Carleton
The person in question had the chance to pay for their music long before ever going to trial. Im sure they were offered a smaller fine but they chose to go to trial.
@Carleton
The person in question had the chance to pay for their music long before ever going to trial. Im sure they were offered a smaller fine but they chose to go to trial.
G
Guest
Does anyone one know how sick this actually is? How sick the justice system in America is these days? It's this sick - the guy could have raped many small children and gotten off for way less - but no, he downloaded a few songs. Yes this is the infamous American Justice system folks.
Shamefully sickening. That "judge" (likely a paid actor) needs his clocked cleaned.
Shamefully sickening. That "judge" (likely a paid actor) needs his clocked cleaned.
Unless there is a set standard throughout the country or the world about which sites are legal and which are not, and unless legal purchase is far more convenient than file-sharing, no one can guarantee that he/she does not infringe copyright. Look at the mass of file-sharing sites---who can tell which of them are legal? Do we have to abandon downloading altogether, and go back to the ancient way of buying CDs to listen to music? The reason why most people choose illicit file-sharing, I think, is not that they don't want to pay the artists, but that they simply do not see how/where they can get a single song legally without having to buy a whole CD/DVD. If record companies can make legal downloading as easy as possible, and give a reasonal price for each piece of music, no one would prefer coarse files on those free-download sites....
Tygerstrike
Posts: 827 +93
@lotu
There is a standard. Its called the copyright protection act. Simple put is that unless you have purchased the rights to use/view a product, you have no rights and it is theft. Plain and simple. Some ppl MAY be able to get away with the I only wanted the one song. But in general its has been claimed by those that pirate, they pirate because they are poor or because they wont get caught. Regardless, the gentleman in question is only being charged with 31 songs. We all know that he download a lot more then 31 songs. The gentleman had the opportunity to find legal ways to pay for his music, he chose not to. He is a victim of his own choices.
There is a standard. Its called the copyright protection act. Simple put is that unless you have purchased the rights to use/view a product, you have no rights and it is theft. Plain and simple. Some ppl MAY be able to get away with the I only wanted the one song. But in general its has been claimed by those that pirate, they pirate because they are poor or because they wont get caught. Regardless, the gentleman in question is only being charged with 31 songs. We all know that he download a lot more then 31 songs. The gentleman had the opportunity to find legal ways to pay for his music, he chose not to. He is a victim of his own choices.
cliffordcooley
Posts: 13,141 +6,441
If this guy shot the judge, I think I would be sympathetic.
It would be different if someone had actually stolen $200K worth of material. How many songs would you have to pirate to get close to $200K worth of downloads?
A $675K fine is ridiculous for these charges.
.
It would be different if someone had actually stolen $200K worth of material. How many songs would you have to pirate to get close to $200K worth of downloads?
A $675K fine is ridiculous for these charges.
.
Similar threads
