30 songs, $675,000: Court won't reduce student's download fine

I'm all for it. I believe the punishments for all laws should be 10 to 20 times worse then the crime. Its the only way to eventually weed out the temptation to commit crimes or try to sneak past laws... in the first place.

A zero tolerance policy is the only way it will work in the end.

If people knew, if they got caught breaking the law...that their only choices were either they will lose their life, or they will lose almost everything they have in life...then making the choice to commit a crime and defraud people, or not, would be an easy one. They simply wouldnt do it.

A zero tolerance never works and the only instance I think it should apply is in cases of "no doubt of guilt" murderers.

If your stance is that the punishment should be 10-20 times worse than the crime, then the student should be paying about $300. 30 songs at $1 a piece. That's close to the price of a song off ITunes.

History has already proven your theory wrong though:
"If people knew, if they got caught breaking the law...that their only choices were either they will lose their life, or they will lose almost everything they have in life...then making the choice to commit a crime and defraud people, or not, would be an easy one. They simply wouldnt do it."

There are some people that are just evil and are going to do anything they want.

There are also people that are driven to crime by circumstance.
If someone has to steal to eat, they have probably already lost almost everything thay had in life as it is.

Anyone remember a few years back the guy in China that defrauded people out of some-odd millions of dollars in an online (I believe it was online) scam and got the death penalty? How many people's lives did that guy ruin? Hard to say, I don't remember all I read, but in some places they kill you for crimes. Not gonna say I approve of that....but...

Ya just know already that this guy isn't going to be able to come up with that kind of cash. The music industry and justice offices may be making a point with fines this stiff........but they ALL KNOW the guy won't be able to pay them. So what is ultimately going to happen to this guy? Is he going to rot in jail for non-payment of debt or will he just have warrants continually issued for him so every time he moves he will be racking up more infractions? ("Sorry to stop you tonight, sir, but I see you have a tail-light out").

I understand that deterrents are needed. But I don't understand what is fixed or what good it does when the deterrent is posted so freaking high that people CAN'T pay the retribution no matter how long they live. The guy committed a non-violent crime, made a mistake whether intentional or non-intentional, he screwed up. He's going to never be free of it. He can't pay restitution, he can't just be deemed guilty, be punished, learn a lesson, and get back with life on a more honest keel. He is going to pay for this crime for the rest of his life - poverty, jail, continual warrants for non-payment. Even someone who kills someone usually gets a chance to live normally again after paying for the crime and having a chance at rehab.

Was he even a hard-core criminal?

Just as Kim pointed out - hard-core criminals are going to commit crimes no matter what the law is. Some states here have death penalties for murder. They still have people murdering people, though. In the mind of the psychotic, eventuality and consequences do not exist.

Sal,
You are right.The government knows most citizens will never be able to pay a fine that size.
Yet you have corporations that are literally poisoning us every day and they throw money and perks at those companies.

As it is right now, we have a lot of innocent people in our criminal system that shouldn't be and the crooks running the country.

That punishment is extreme and ridiculous. I sure don't condone it. It is basically a cowardly bully going after the small guys because he's scared of the big guys who commit crimes that actually harm people (Wall Street). It looks like an excuse for repressing someone who's already targeted for something else, like arresting someone for jaywalking.

Absolutely right T-Bird.

It's one thing to face stiff punishment for a crime and quite another to be made example of. The Music industry hoped that these outrageous penalties would deter other illegal file sharing but I don't think it has. It's like trying to stop salmon from swimming up stream by eating a few. Not going to work because for every 1 you eat there's another 10 ready to take their place.

So now this kid is royally screwed and for what? Other than in his immediate circle, I doubt his experience will have much of an effect on anyone else. The judge's kid probably has a few illegal downloads.

that guy sure has expensive taste in music

This is why I shoplift from the CD store at the mall.

Considering a 45 RPM record was a dollar back in the late 60s and early 70s and it had 2 songs on it, imo 99 cents to $1.30 for a song 30-40 years later is a bargain.
I have no problem buying my music,or transfering it from vinyl to Cds.

That's certainly a huge fine and extremely excessive. Appears the music industry is trying to make a statement by setting a precedent that will deter people from stealing music. And that's what it is: stealing.

If this is a civil case, the kid might be able to file bankruptcy and he won't end up paying anything.

I would guess that this person has learned his lesson and won't be downloading songs in the future without paying for them. Court is a scary place to be.

If this was a case involving a corporation, that's what the big boys do - file BK and emerge the next day under another name to continue their corrupt practices.

No need to tell me that this kid filing BK isn't right, I'm simply making an observation and I don't know if he is even eligible for filing.

Lori,
First, just to let you know, this case is a few years old, this is not a new thing.

I assume by BK you mean bankruptcy?

I would have no problem with the kid doing that but you can't get out of certain things under bankruptcy,and I'm pretty sure a fine like this would be one of those things.
I'm no expert on this though.

I agree in making the crime hurt some, but this is way over the top excessive, IMO. I also doubt if making an example out of this guy will stop anyone else ... if anything, my guess is it will turn even more people against the RIAA and the music industry.

Malls are definitely still big,though changing, seems a lot are now calling themselves "outdoor" malls.

You see that word illegally?
That pretty much sums the problem up.

But if you want to give it away, give it away,but if you want to sell it then don't say stealing is ok.

That's just excessive and way over the top. The lawyers in the case were probably jumping for joy to get their fees for winning.

The kids that are dumb enough to download and share illegally are small potatoes compared to real criminals that often get off easy.

I'd rather see effort put into taking out real criminals instead of trashing a young kid's life for their stupidity.

I don't condone stealing another's property, but for a company to steal through the court system is worse. They and their lawyers need to become human beings instead of leeches.

I agree Ken.That's why self published/self produced/self marketed bands are the way of the future. Go directly from the source to the consumer.
Greg, you want people to hear your music? Do what the big places do, offer a 30 second sample...
Then sell them the whole song.
My nephew and his band just got a song on ITunes. They aren't going to make a fortune from doing that,but they can get a lot of exposure they didn't have before.

Let me answer for ya then Joe.
We have FYE here in our local mall but I have found them more expensive than other places.Unless its something you HAVE to have immediately,then you're better off shopping elsewhere.

I don't know Terra, I usually get most jokes, but some ,well, I don't know.....


Greg,
If you're band is any good you are bound to get some of your music stolen, it's been going on long before the internet.Back when Vinyl was the medium of choice people would sneak tape recorders in to music venues and tape whole shows then transwer to vinyl and bootleg them.
I was just trying to say don't condone illegal activity just because you know it's going to happen anyway. Make sense?

so, are bootlegs the same or different to so-called piracy?

is it legal, to record from vinyl to cd, or any other media, even for your own personal use?