Download “Free” Music? Guess Its Not Free If It Costs $80K Per Song
Outside the world of domains, but right up the alley of intellectual property, a federal court just issued a judgment against a “free” music file sharer for $1.9 million dollars or $80,000 per song.
Jammie Thomas-Rasset, was found guilty of willful copyright infringement today and was ordered to pay the Recording Industry Association of America (RIAA) $1.9 million dollars for illegally downloading “a representative sample of 24 songs”.
“We appreciate the jury’s service and that they take this issue as seriously as we do,” said Cara Duckworth, an RIAA spokeswoman. “We are pleased that the jury agreed with the evidence and found the defendant liable. Since day 1, we have been willing to settle the case and remain willing to do so.”
I’m no math major, but I think that the young lady would have been better off spending the $23.76 to download the 24 songs on itunes.com
Loading ...
So you are in favor of the RIAA? You think she would be better off? How about the world would be better off without the RIAA. Do you know nothing of tech? I hate how this blog is always in favor of the corporations, and is completely bias for anything on the other side of the fence of intellectual property laws.
I pay for all my music, and I am still on the defendants side. In fact I am always on the defendants side. Complainants are exactly that, whining complainers that say “this isn’t fair” “my business model isn’t working it is her fault.” It is just that, and you sit there from the sidelines, and preech for intellectual property laws. Well you sir, get no respect in this biz.
Lame
I don’t see how anyone has a right to getting someone’s creative work for free.
You don’t work for free.
However I wouldn’t say I’m in favor of the RIAA and everything thing do.
The news is misreporting this just a bit. They didn’t go after her because she downloaded 24 songs, they went after her because they were able to download 24 songs FROM her.
Kazaa P2P
She downloaded at least 1700 songs apparently…
Still, a ridiculously skewed award, especially when you consider she was offered a settlement of $3k. Bet she wishes she’d taken that deal now….
I don’t listen to any music because it disturbs concentration on work. Some people claim music help them during working and I used to do so. But once a friend convinced me to try it a week without music. When I got used to it and tried music on again I realized how much disturbant music (or any other noise) is…
Wonder how much of that $1.9m goes to the artists. Bets anyone?
^You are naive to believe that some white trash will give even $100
@Mike
I’m gonna go with on the order of $0 give or take.
Support artists that support free music! Record Labels are evil and the world would be better with more indie labels
This is quite a hot information. I’ll share it on Twitter.
p.s. Year One is already on the Internet and you can watch it for free.
UPDATE
The defendant in this case announced she will be appealing the decision
http://news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10277701-93.html?part=rss&tag=feed&subj=News-DigitalMedia