Quote:
Originally Posted by drjones
Justice in America has never been about stringing people up to make examples of them. That mentality is *supposed* to be left back in the dark ages. I mean... I'm pretty sure we could eliminate jay walking if we just executed every jay walker on the spot. But that would be excessive.
|
being made an example is absolutely part of the criminal process. It's just the level of punishment you are taking issue with. The level of excess is up to the court to determine and has its proper checks and balances.
If this were an organization that made money off the transfer of these items, would the $220k seem excessive??? No.. it would probably seem very low. As was stated before, the statutes actually allow for a greater punishment. She wasn't even anywhere near the middle ground for each infraction.
Quote:
|
Not saying she was smart to take this whole thing to court at all... knowing the evidence against her, she definitely should have settled and she was definitely worthy of some repercussions. 220k (and attorney feeds) is a bit high, especially when there was no appreciable loss on the RIAA's part.
|
Yes there is loss on RIAA's part. That is what many people are neglecting. Just becasue a song isn't a tangible product you can touch with your hands does not change that it is a product nonetheless. This woman (and many many like her) are taking something from the inventory of RIAA and it's artists and handing it out. They are delivering product without properly compensating the owner of the product. Change the song to bread, or donuts, or whatnot, and this woman is not controlling one song. Due to the ripple effect of sharing, her sharing the song could be in the factor of 10,000 or 100,000 shares of the song. How many of those are true sales that will never happen now? How many future sales of any song will never happen because the purchasers know they can get it for free elsewhere? It's not as simple as saying she didn't really do that much wrong.