Single-mother must pay almost $2m for... downloading 24 songs?

Friendly Lurker

Friendly Lurker

Scooby
Joined
Nov 10, 2008
Messages
1,035
Location
Finland
Black Thorn
D
DrusillaRox
outofkarma soheressomekarma karma
C
charmingslayer
[No message]
I had better start saving my pennies for something other than travelling and living. 😛

I'm wondering why she was hit so hard. The article mentions that most settlements are around $3,000 to $5,000....and I'm sure those were by people who probably downloaded way more than 24 songs. That is going to set one hell of a precedent if she can't appeal.
 
^ Maybe that's what they were going for. Making an example of the mum to try and deter people from downloading.

Although for the record-- 2 million dollars? A single mom? That's pretty outrageous in my opinion. It makes it really hard for me to have sympathies for these record companies that are losing "more and more money" to downloading, when they go after someone in that situation for that amount of money. For 80 thousand dollars, she could have sent a child through university. Instead she's dishing out money that I'm assuming she doesn't have handy to a multi-billion dollar company.

And did I mention that's only like, 2 CDs worth of music? Retail those CDs would be thirty dollars each, maybe.
 
I know it's illegal, but seriously, who DOESN'T download illegally?
I think it's a tad ridiculous. The price that is. Didn't have to be that expensive. She'll never be able to afford it
 
I think it's mostly a scare tactic since she had the chance of "getting away" with less money before the trial. But one thing to remember is the difference of getting 24 songs for yourself or distribute it to thousands of others. The music companies have themselves to blame for a lot of this and they try to solve it and a very wrong way. But one song can be so much more than just one song.
 
I know this isnt the point, but why does it matter that she's a single mom? Like a married man with no children should be treated any differently?
 
LookingGlass said:
I know this isnt the point, but why does it matter that she's a single mom? Like a married man with no children should be treated any differently?
Click to expand...

It shouldn't but because we have our stereoptypes ready we feel more sorry for a single mum. Just as it's a bigger loss when a celebrity dies or if it's some more unknown you still hear comments like "but he/she was so beautiful". Like that makes the death more tragic. Single mum = that poor woman getting abondoned. She's probably poor too. Married man = probably successful and happy. Don't you just love how our brains work.
 
If you read the whole article it says that the RIAA is still willing to settle between $3,000 to $5,000 even though she declined that initially and chose to pursue it in court. I could be wrong but the article said that she was accused of posting 1,700 songs for illegal download not just downloading them herself. Don't get me wrong, I think the ruling is ridiculous but maybe there is more to this story than meets the eye. I think the people who create these sites that allow for illegal downloading should be sued, not the people that use them.
 
LookingGlass said:
I know this isnt the point, but why does it matter that she's a single mom? Like a married man with no children should be treated any differently?
Click to expand...

Not specific to this case (because, as other's have said, there might be more to it than just thos 24 downloaded songs), but of course they should treat them differently. The married man with no children doesn't have to support anyone, except maybe his wife, and if that's the case it's time for her to get her ass up and look for a job, a single mother might have to support a child all by herself and the child could be deprived of good education and whatnot because of this, with non of this being his/her own fault.
 
Kristine said:
the child could be deprived of good education and whatnot because of this, with non of this being his/her own fault.
Click to expand...

Not like I disagree that with that it's not good for the child. And if that happens I feel sorry for it. But at the same time should someone get away easier with something just because they have kids? She broke the law, like the law or not but she did. I don't see the reason "having a kid" (or more) should play much part. How ever I'm not (totally) against the "pay depending on what you got" thing. They got that in Norway I think, at least with speeding tickets. I think you pay depending on your income. Which I kind of like since a certain sum will hurt some people a lot while some people will just laugh it off and don't care. So to me, what you're saying it kind of sounds like telling people "If you have kids you'll get off easier if you commit a crime". And I'm not sure I like the sound of that. Most of the single parents may struggle but base it on that in that case and not the fact that they're parents. Not all single parents have a tough time economicly.
 
caritas08 said:
I think the people who create these sites that allow for illegal downloading should be sued, not the people that use them.
Click to expand...

Completely disagree! If there were more sites that allowed legal downloading at reasonable prices, there would be much less illegal downloading.

Record companies, and the BPI must join the 21st Century.
 
This is almost certainly very little more than an attempt by the music owners/publishers to scare the countless people who illegally download music, movies, tv shows, concerts, and just about anything else that you can get on a tape or disc. There will be a settlement for little more than a token payment and the assurance by the defendant, probably under penalty of threat of having to pay the full awarded sum, that she will never disclose the amount that she actual amount that she pays.
 
Kristine said:
Not specific to this case (because, as other's have said, there might be more to it than just thos 24 downloaded songs), but of course they should treat them differently. The married man with no children doesn't have to support anyone, except maybe his wife, and if that's the case it's time for her to get her ass up and look for a job, a single mother might have to support a child all by herself and the child could be deprived of good education and whatnot because of this, with non of this being his/her own fault.
Click to expand...

There are so many ways this is wrong. So just because she has a child she should have a lesser sentence? She broke the law. She deserves the punishment. Maybe she shouldn't have done what she did if she can't deal with the consequences?

People assume that a single mother is automatically poor. People assume that a married man with no children is automatically more "well off". Since when can we just blanket a term and know everything about them?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want the child to suffer any in this, but to play on our sympathies just because the woman has a child with no man is wrong.

How do we know she didn't leave the man herself? That it isn't her fault he's no with the child?

She needs to be judged for what she did, not what she does or doesn't have.
 
VisionGuy
VisionGuy
[No message]
LookingGlass said:
There are so many ways this is wrong. So just because she has a child she should have a lesser sentence? She broke the law. She deserves the punishment. Maybe she shouldn't have done what she did if she can't deal with the consequences?

People assume that a single mother is automatically poor. People assume that a married man with no children is automatically more "well off". Since when can we just blanket a term and know everything about them?

Don't get me wrong, I don't want the child to suffer any in this, but to play on our sympathies just because the woman has a child with no man is wrong.

How do we know she didn't leave the man herself? That it isn't her fault he's no with the child?

She needs to be judged for what she did, not what she does or doesn't have.
Click to expand...

I'm not saying you shouldn't punish the people for what they did, I'm just saying you should others that didn't do anything suffer from it.
Maybe the woman isn't poor, but (almost) no one an just shake 2mil dollars out of their sleeve. It doesn't matter if she's 'well off', that amount of money puts a strain on almost everyone. Only in her case, it's not just affecting her but the kids as well. I read somewhere, she has 4 kids btw.
Of course such a sum would be hard to pay for anyone, also for the childless married man, but in his case that doesn't really affect anyone else.
Clearly, there is something wrong with the entire US' social system. It should be possible to punish someone without taking someone else down with them, but of course I'm being all Utopian again.
 
Kristine said:
I'm not saying you shouldn't punish the people for what they did, I'm just saying you should others that didn't do anything suffer from it.
Maybe the woman isn't poor, but (almost) no one an just shake 2mil dollars out of their sleeve. It doesn't matter if she's 'well off', that amount of money puts a strain on almost everyone.
Click to expand...

Exactly - which is why it doesn't (or shouldn't) matter that she has kids and is single.

Only in her case, it's not just affecting her but the kids as well. I read somewhere, she has 4 kids btw.
Of course such a sum would be hard to pay for anyone, also for the childless married man, but in his case that doesn't really affect anyone else.
Click to expand...

So anyone who commits a crime, the punishment should fit according to who gets affected by it, not by what the crime is?

Clearly, there is something wrong with the entire US' social system. It should be possible to punish someone without taking someone else down with them, but of course I'm being all Utopian again.
Click to expand...

Why do you automatically assume that the children are going to be worse off for this? It's entirely possible that this woman has other means to fund the children's lives, or that a family member will take care of them until she has this resolved. To treat her differently because of the possiblity that the children may suffer isn't right.

For example, if a man kills everyone on his block but has four kids, should he not get the same punishment as a single man who kills everyone on his block just because they guy has kids?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom