RIAA Wins $220,000 Judgment Against File Sharer
4 Responses
| Steve L. |
I hate to admit it, but they do have a right to sue for illegal downloading. But to solely blame illegal downloading on their loss of money over the last 7-8 years is absurd. Sony BMG (as an example) loses shitloads of $ by having people like Jennifer Praiser on payroll and, thereby, alienates people that actually do buy albums. Fucking morons. |
| Etan Rosenbloom |
Also you have to remember, most people that the RIAA has sued were smart enough to settle out of court for a much, much smaller penalty. I'm not saying that this woman deserves to be slammed in the first place, but she was an idiot if she thought that she could win this case. It's pretty easy to trace the illegal downloads back to her IP address. I heard on the radio that her lawyer's case was essentially "Eh, you can never be TOTALLY sure it was actually her that shared those files." |
| Kyle |
I love that all the articles point out that she is a "single mother" having to pay $220,000 to the [evil] man. What does being single or a mother have to do with her illegally downloading music? The RIAA didn't go after her for her singleness or motherhood. She got sued for illegal activity, plain and simple. As a poor college student, I somehow pay the $10-15 for a CD. If I don't have the money to buy a CD I want, then I just have to live without it. |

This is insanity. The RIAA is absolutely evil. Who's running that organization, Dick Cheney?