OT: single mom ordered to pay $220,000 for sharing 24 downloaded songs

One time on Usenet said:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071004233021.itudt24b&show_article=1

That's why I buy my music (as we discussed in another thread) -- I
don't want to get sued...

--
Jani in WA

(Little Malice) said:

One time on Usenet said:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071004233021.itudt24b&show_ar...

That's why I buy my music (as we discussed in another thread) -- I
don't want to get sued...

The woman sure had crappy taste. Destiny's Child?

Quoted message said:

--
Jani in WA

--Bryan

Dee Dee said:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071004233021.itudt24b&show_article=1

I have to ask what her being a single mother has to do with the case?
Apparently she had a chance to pay just a few thousand dollars to settle
the case but opted to fight it. Apparently she felt that it was wrong for
the record company to target her. That ranks up there with [censored] about
getting charged for speeding because other people are speeding too.

Bobo Bonobo® said:

(Little Malice) said:

One time on Usenet said:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071004233021.itudt24b&show_ar...

That's why I buy my music (as we discussed in another thread) -- I
don't want to get sued...

The woman sure had crappy taste. Destiny's Child?

IMO Destiny's Child is no worse than most of the contemporary music, which
helps to explain the popularity of all those 60s and 70s stations. She had
a lot more than just Destiny's Child. THey only went after her for 24
songs. They could have gone after her for all 1,702 songs that she was
sharing illegally.

Dee Dee said:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071004233021.itudt24b&show_ar...

What does being single and a mom have to do with anything???

Dee Dee said:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071004233021.itudt24b&show_article=1

....and the connection between;
being a Mom, being single
and illegally downloading songs is ????

I'm surprised they didn't say;
"Native American underprivileged single parent
forced to steal tunes to make ends meet"

<rj>

In article said:

Dee Dee said:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071004233021.itudt24b&show_article=1

....and the connection between;
being a Mom, being single
and illegally downloading songs is ????

I'm surprised they didn't say;
"Native American underprivileged single parent

who was abused as a child

Quoted message said:

forced to steal tunes to make ends meet

while confined to a wheelchair"

Cheers, Phred.

--
[email hidden]

Dave Smith <[email hidden]> dropped this
news:[email hidden]: in rec.food.cooking

Quoted message said:

Dee Dee said:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071004233021.itudt24b&show_art
icle=1

I have to ask what her being a single mother has to do with the case?
Apparently she had a chance to pay just a few thousand dollars to
settle the case but opted to fight it. Apparently she felt that it was
wrong for the record company to target her. That ranks up there with
[censored] about getting charged for speeding because other people are
speeding too.

I agree Dave. It sounds like she was trying to set some sort of precedent
and lost. I doubt the recording companies will actively pursue her for
the $ though. She sounds like an example the company wants to tout.

I don't *think* I break any copyright laws when I download TV
documentaries or movies previously shown on cable. I might be wrong
about that too. I've never had an issue with it. I've never downloaded
any music. I usually just buy the CD. As for movies, I buy them when
they go on sale. I ferret out the hard to find biographies and
documentaries online and I'm searching for some food torrents mentioned
in an earlier thread. I'm not a prolific downloader though. May 2 or 3 a
year.

Michael

--
Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their
food, and tyrannize their teachers.
- Socrates

to email: dog3 at charter dot net

Sheldon <[email hidden]> dropped this news:1191547123.129351.39360
@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com: in rec.food.cooking

Quoted message said:

Dee Dee said:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071004233021.itudt24b&show_ar...

What does being single and a mom have to do with anything???

The "boo hoo" victim factor?

--
Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their
food, and tyrannize their teachers.
- Socrates

to email: dog3 at charter dot net

"Michael "Dog3"" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Sheldon <[email hidden]> dropped this

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What does being single and a mom have to do with anything???

The "boo hoo" victim factor?

If she walked into a store and stole thousands of CDs, she'd
be arrested. For whatever reason, seems people think stealing
online is okay, not to mention harmless.

nancy

Nancy Young said:

"Michael "Dog3"" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Sheldon <[email hidden]> dropped this

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

What does being single and a mom have to do with anything???

The "boo hoo" victim factor?

If she walked into a store and stole thousands of CDs, she'd
be arrested. For whatever reason, seems people think stealing
online is okay, not to mention harmless.

nancy

From the gist I picked up, it wasn't so much the fact that she
downloaded the songs than it was she 'shared' them so thousands of
others could download them as well. I think that was the issue at hand
perhaps? Unfortunately, copyright infringement happens in many forms,
not just with downloaded digital media.

Sky

--
Ultra Ultimate Kitchen Rule - Use the Timer!
Ultimate Kitchen Rule -- Cook's Choice

"Sky" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Nancy Young said:

"Michael "Dog3"" <[email hidden]> wrote

Quoted message said:

Sheldon <[email hidden]> dropped this

Quoted message said:

> What does being single and a mom have to do with anything???

The "boo hoo" victim factor?

If she walked into a store and stole thousands of CDs, she'd
be arrested. For whatever reason, seems people think stealing
online is okay, not to mention harmless.

Quoted message said:

From the gist I picked up, it wasn't so much the fact that she
downloaded the songs than it was she 'shared' them so thousands of
others could download them as well.

That's why I said thousands of CDs, because that's the effect.

Quoted message said:

I think that was the issue at hand perhaps? Unfortunately, copyright
infringement happens in many forms, not just with downloaded digital
media.

Definitely, and maybe I'm guilty as well when I post recipes
I found somewhere, even if I attribute.

nancy

[email hidden] (Little Malice) wrote in
news:[email hidden]:

Quoted message said:

One time on Usenet said:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071004233021.itudt24b&show_art
icle=1

That's why I buy my music (as we discussed in another thread) -- I
don't want to get sued...

That's your choice....... but what a crock for this woman, and others to be
dragged before the courts.

As soon as a song/music is played on the airwaves....... it's public
property.

I rarely buy music........ only when something exceptional comes
along....... but the SO is an avid music listener and constantly wants her
Ipod updated.

So Kazaar used to be a favourite of mine........ but now it's Limewire.

*Or*, you have all the Torrent sites.

Michael \'Dog3\ said:

Dave Smith <[email hidden]> dropped thisnews:[email hidden]:in rec.food.cooking

Quoted message said:

Dee Dee wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071004233021.itudt24b&show_art
icle=1

Quoted message said:

I have to ask what her being a single mother has to do with the case?
Apparently she had a chance to pay just a few thousand dollars to
settle the case but opted to fight it. Apparently she felt that it was
wrong for the record company to target her. That ranks up there with
[censored] about getting charged for speeding because other people are
speeding too.

I agree Dave. It sounds like she was trying to set some sort of precedent
and lost. I doubt the recording companies will actively pursue her for
the $ though. She sounds like an example the company wants to tout.

I don't *think* I break any copyright laws when I download TV
documentaries or movies previously shown on cable. I might be wrong
about that too. I've never had an issue with it. I've never downloaded
any music. I usually just buy the CD. As for movies, I buy them when
they go on sale. I ferret out the hard to find biographies and
documentaries online and I'm searching for some food torrents mentioned
in an earlier thread. I'm not a prolific downloader though. May 2 or 3 a
year.

Michael

--
Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their
food, and tyrannize their teachers.
- Socrates

to email: dog3 at charter dot net

Is it legal to download to one's own iPod or whatever, and illegal to
share them with other people? Or just illegal to download (without
paying) from the get-go? Can't you pay 99 cents or whatever a tune,
and put them on your own device?

N. (Obviously, technically a dinosaur.)

Michael \'Dog3\ said:

Dave Smith <[email hidden]> dropped thisnews:[email hidden]:in rec.food.cooking

Quoted message said:

Dee Dee wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071004233021.itudt24b&show_art
icle=1

Quoted message said:

I have to ask what her being a single mother has to do with the case?
Apparently she had a chance to pay just a few thousand dollars to
settle the case but opted to fight it. Apparently she felt that it was
wrong for the record company to target her. That ranks up there with
[censored] about getting charged for speeding because other people are
speeding too.

I agree Dave. It sounds like she was trying to set some sort of precedent
and lost. I doubt the recording companies will actively pursue her for
the $ though. She sounds like an example the company wants to tout.

I don't *think* I break any copyright laws when I download TV
documentaries or movies previously shown on cable. I might be wrong
about that too. I've never had an issue with it. I've never downloaded
any music. I usually just buy the CD. As for movies, I buy them when
they go on sale. I ferret out the hard to find biographies and
documentaries online and I'm searching for some food torrents mentioned
in an earlier thread. I'm not a prolific downloader though. May 2 or 3 a
year.

Michael

--
Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their
food, and tyrannize their teachers.
- Socrates

to email: dog3 at charter dot net

Is it legal to download to one's own iPod or whatever, and illegal to
share them with other people? Or just illegal to download (without
paying) from the get-go? Can't you pay 99 cents or whatever a tune,
and put them on your own device?

N. (Obviously, technically a dinosaur.)

Dave Smith said:

Dee Dee said:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071004233021.itudt24b&show_article=1

Quoted message said:

I have to ask what her being a single mother has to do with the case?
Apparently she had a chance to pay just a few thousand dollars to
settle the case but opted to fight it. Apparently she felt that it
was wrong for the record company to target her. That ranks up there
with [censored] about getting charged for speeding because other people
are speeding too.

True, being a single mother is irrelevant but, hey, anything to jack up the
press, I suppose. The fact that she's a single mother will automatically
put her in a bad light with some people. As if fine upstanding
married-with-children types *never* do this sort of thing... puleeeze!

People don't seem to grasp this is akin to shoplifting. The only difference
is you physically touch the item you've stolen. Those songs are
copyrighted. Many of the people involved in the production of the music are
entitled to receive royalties for their work. Thinking it's okay to steal
music (or software!) just because it's not a tangible item you can touch is
simply ridiculous. It's like expecting a plumber to do his work free of
charge.

Jill

Dave Smith said:

Dee Dee said:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071004233021.itudt24b&show_article=1

Quoted message said:

I have to ask what her being a single mother has to do with the case?
Apparently she had a chance to pay just a few thousand dollars to
settle the case but opted to fight it. Apparently she felt that it
was wrong for the record company to target her. That ranks up there
with [censored] about getting charged for speeding because other people
are speeding too.

True, being a single mother is irrelevant but, hey, anything to jack up the
press, I suppose. The fact that she's a single mother will automatically
put her in a bad light with some people. As if fine upstanding
married-with-children types *never* do this sort of thing... puleeeze!

People don't seem to grasp this is akin to shoplifting. The only difference
is you physically touch the item you've stolen. Those songs are
copyrighted. Many of the people involved in the production of the music are
entitled to receive royalties for their work. Thinking it's okay to steal
music (or software!) just because it's not a tangible item you can touch is
simply ridiculous. It's like expecting a plumber to do his work free of
charge.

Jill

Dave Smith said:

Dee Dee said:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071004233021.itudt24b&show_article=1

I have to ask what her being a single mother has to do with the case?
Apparently she had a chance to pay just a few thousand dollars to settle
the case but opted to fight it. Apparently she felt that it was wrong for
the record company to target her. That ranks up there with [censored] about
getting charged for speeding because other people are speeding too.

Exactly. The article appeared in my daily paper as well and I found
myself especially annoyed that her comment referred to her as a "poor
girl" and lamenting that she's faced with wage garnishment for "the rest
of her life". She's 30 years old, for crying out loud, not some young
kid who doesn't know better.

Dave Smith said:

Dee Dee said:

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=071004233021.itudt24b&show_article=1

I have to ask what her being a single mother has to do with the case?
Apparently she had a chance to pay just a few thousand dollars to settle
the case but opted to fight it. Apparently she felt that it was wrong for
the record company to target her. That ranks up there with [censored] about
getting charged for speeding because other people are speeding too.

Exactly. The article appeared in my daily paper as well and I found
myself especially annoyed that her comment referred to her as a "poor
girl" and lamenting that she's faced with wage garnishment for "the rest
of her life". She's 30 years old, for crying out loud, not some young
kid who doesn't know better.