Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Threatens 15-Year-Old
MunchMunch writes "It looks like the RIAA is still going after teenagers--this time, 15-year old Megan Dickinson was caught sharing 1,100 files. At the maximum statutory damages for copyright infringement, this makes Megan's liability at least $825,000, at most a mere $165,000,000. Naturally, the RIAA benevolently offered a $3,500 settlement to avoid these moderate, legally sanctioned damages. As we can hardly forget, the RIAA has already used this technique to settle with a 12 year old. Megan's unsurprising take: 'Yeah, it seems ridiculous.'"
You make it sound like she wasn't doing anything wrong. If she is sharing 1100 songs that SHE DID NOT PAY FOR, then she is stealing from them. Yes, this is an unpopular view here, but I mean come on, if instead of $165M worth of copyright infringement, she had just one picture of a 15 year old boy in a sexual position, would you all defend her?
Jesus christ. She is BREAKING THE LAW. Why shouldn't she be punished?
Not funny. Comments like this and people willing to accept this kind of messages is what makes people in your country go nuts and go postal.
Open Source Java Web Forum with LDAP authentication
Actually, people who push to far and are so sociopathic as to think that suing children is a good idea are what make people go nuts and go postal.
Injustice in abuse of the system, with no appreciable penalty to the offender is what makes people go "postal".
Yea, the kid needs to be punished. Threatening a $165 million lawsuit to get $3500 out of her is the act of a lowlife piece of shit.
I could see where say, this kids father say, might accidentally run over a family member or twelve of an RIAA officer. It wouldn't be right, but I could see it happening. Pushing people too far is just not good business.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
"If anything the girl should be grateful that the RIAA is willing to drop the charges for a paltry $3,500. "
Oh Bullshit.
She should be grateful that they reduced it to something near actual damages?
THey should be held in contempt of court if they attempt to press the $165 million value. THat much damage has not been done by all the piracy in the world.
You have to cost a sale to cost damage.
I don't buy music at all anymore. I have enough already.
God help anyone who tells me I have to buy a new copy for my car jukebox though. I don't share, and I don't surrender my fair use rights to anyone.
and I think anyone who would sue a child for that much money, or would think that, given the facts would actually think it justified are scumbags, plain and simple.
Just because it's legal doesn't make it right.
"Oh my God. This is terrible. This is the end of my Presidency. I'm fucked."; ~ Donald J. Trump
(I'm assuming you're American here, sorry if I'm wrong.)
So, you are admititng that the US legal system is designed to allow rich (RIAA in this case) to throw pocket money at suing less rich (eg some single parent in low-paid job and his/her child) and essentially forcing them to settle (pay "protection money") unless they want to go out of their way to show that they're innocent, which will probaby cost them more money (lost wages, stress, lawyer fees) even if they'd win in the court, which is far from certain in a US civil court against a team of top lawyers the rich one hired...?
And you make it sound like it's good it was designed this way? I'm glad there's an ocean between me and the US...