$675,000 for 30 songs?
 

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.co...d-is-in-sight/

Anyone have any insight about this. I'm simply amazed about this case. How do they come up with that amount? Is this with or without lawyers?

Re: $675,000 for 30 songs?
 

n900 ****in rules!!!!! if it was legal to marry my n900.....pause!

Re: $675,000 for 30 songs?
 

what has this to do with n900?
has Philly started to legalise the medicinal marijuana too that i never heard in news?

Re: $675,000 for 30 songs?
 

Lawyers Musicians have families to feed too

Re: $675,000 for 30 songs?
 

30 songs = 675k$

Makes total sense. According to the latest court-approved estimates, RIAA and MPAA are losing more dollars every second than world has created so far. Logic. I just downloaded a track, not bad, wouldn't pay for it a cent, but they just lost 20k$. Greece also had imaginary accounting, lets hope it won't stand once last appeal/supreme court has been reached. It would mean we have been riched.

Re: $675,000 for 30 songs?
 

sometimes idiocy should be rewarded with a hard kick to the nuts.

Re: $675,000 for 30 songs?
 

This explains it (and is quite entertaining too):
http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/en/rob_reid_the_8_billion_ipod.html

Re: $675,000 for 30 songs?
 

The funny thing here is that: lets say somone download/upload 3000 songs which I would say is quite common bck then.

The guy would pay a penelty of $67500000. And this makes it even more stupid. Its like take one guy out of thousends, stop him for speeding and charge him for all the others who driving faster than the limit. It's not making any sense.

No doubt, its a crime. But there must be some kind of justice?

Re: $675,000 for 30 songs?
 

Not in this world.

Re: $675,000 for 30 songs?
 

It's called making an example of one offender in the hope that they will all cr@p bricks and either turn themselves in or cease downloading.

Hardly likely to happen though.

Re: $675,000 for 30 songs?
 

Arbitrary large amounts to discourage file sharing.
Not that it scsres the general populace from grabbing their tunes online, as can be seen by looking up the most popular files on torrent sites ;)

It does, however scare the **** out of people who get extortio... I mean settlement mails. You can go to court (and likely end up like up above) or pay a relatively small (extortionate) fine.

Do you want to be the next Rasset? I don't think so.

This **** needs to stop, really.
Record companies need to seriously calm the **** down about piracy. There's simply a large chunk of people who will take the "free" alternative when available.
On the flipside, they keep setting record quarters after another with the massive popularity of their autotunestars (but that's another discussion for another day).

Re: $675,000 for 30 songs?
 

He downloaded then "shared" them again.
He initiated another continuing, expanding sequence of the works being distributed & the owners of the works not being paid. I think it's fair & necessary.

The "share" euphemism for "steal & redistribute" that was initiated by Napster is one of the nastiest pieces of newspeak devised.

Re: $675,000 for 30 songs?
 

non-rival goods + non-profit, so it's certainly not stealing either, thanks for the lesson on newspeak.
The real term is "copyright infringement"