Judge Slashes "Unconstitutionally Excessive" File Sharing Fine By 90%

**Darth Sushi** · 07-11-2010, 11:03 AM

Judge Slashes "Unconstitutionally Excessive" File Sharing Fine By 90%
By Kyle VanHemert, Jul 10, 2010 : GIZMODO

"

Last summer, a Boston University graduate student was ordered to pay $670,000 in damages for illegally downloading 30 songs. Yesterday, US District Court Judge Nancy Gertner said that was ludicrous and reduced it to $67,000. Thank God.

Even that reduced number, she wrote in her decision, is "severe, even harsh." She hopes the reduced damages will serve a dual purpose: showing downloaders that illegal file sharing will have significant financial consequences, but also sending a message that the constitution protects ordinary people from excessive punishment just as much as it protects record companies and their copyright claims.

The Boston Globe points out that this is only the second file-sharing case to reach the federal level; a judge reduced a Minnesota woman's fine from $1.9 million to $54,000 last year.

In their response to yesterday's decision, the buffoons at the RIAA exhibited their usual buffoonery, claiming that Gertner's ruling ignored the "profound economic and artistic harm" to their artists. They plan to contest the decision.

And while the decision is definitely a small victory for file-sharers everywhere, the downloader in question wasn't too thrilled about his reduced penalty. "It's basically equally unpayable to me," he said. [Boston.com] "

Source: http://gizmodo.com/5584018/judge-sla...-damages-by-90

**Kryatle** · 07-11-2010, 03:40 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Sushi

In their response to yesterday's decision, the buffoons at the RIAA exhibited their usual buffoonery, claiming that Gertner's ruling ignored the "profound economic and artistic harm" to their artists. They plan to contest the decision.

I find that so stupid, that they are planning to contest the decision.. As much as I agree that people should pay for what they like, I highly doubt any of the music artists are actually suffering at all from people downloading their music. Hell most of them spend there money on houses/mansions, which they don't even live in most of the time and purchase 9 different cars, and get everything custom made. It's sickening to see the RIAA suing individuals for retarded amounts of money. They ruin peoples lives, just to gain a damn profit for themselves. They don't care about the individuals, families or even the damn artists, they care about themselves and the money.

**c0ld** · 07-11-2010, 03:54 PM

Originally Posted by Darth Sushi

the "profound economic and artistic harm" to their artists.

Let me just get my fuckin' violin.

**rsomer** · 07-12-2010, 03:53 PM

I agree with you. If they are going to do this, then they have a very, very large job ahead of them. Just imagine all the people around the world downloading music, movies, etc. in just 1 day?

**darkstate01** · 07-12-2010, 04:12 PM

My life would be over if i had to pay that, good job i'm not an illegal file sharer.

gridrunner · 07-13-2010, 01:43 PM

That is crazy. 30 songs and they wanted millions of dollars because the guy downloaded them without paying for them.
What if he had recorded them off the radio then played them on his mp3 player, or say recorded some music videos mtv on his pvr. Well that would also be 30 songs he hadnt bought. Would that have incurred the same fine. I dont think so.
30 songs that could only be worth 1$ each so about $30.
If the guy walked into a music store and stole 10 music cds and was caught would he be fined millions of dollars. no of course not.

This is another example of how wrong this world is. Music artists and corporations making huge amounts of money whilst everyday in places around the world people are dying from poverty. Surely this is more important than downloading music. Maybe government should be more conserned with what is right and solving imortant problems rather than doing the bidding of the super rich.