Woman ordered to pay $6,050 for downloading 8 songs
- August 19th, 2008
- 5 Comments
A Bronx woman will have to pay the RIAA $6,050 for making songs available to download on Kazaa. That works out to something like $756 per song (there were eight songs in question).
The case, Electra v. Barker, matters a little more than serving as anti-RIAA fodder. The RIAA was trying to argue that merely making songs available in a shared folder was tantamount to copyright infringement. If that were the case, the RIAA wouldn’t have to prove that anyone actually downloaded songs from your computer (that is, that you actually uploaded songs). That seems, I don’t know, unfair, but my days of freaking out at the RIAA are over.
What’s the worst that can happen to someone who refuses to pay such a settlement? Are you looking at jailtime for downloading some songs?
joe
3 months ago
How does the RIAA know whether or not they were the actual songs and not someone’s karaoke singing or a fake file or something.
Reply
Cody B (Who am I?)
3 months ago
Why would they do that when they can just garnish your wages? You can’t make money to give them when you’re in jail.
Joe - It was explained to me that since they work for the music labels they can download all they want. Since they are not the cops, they can’t get in trouble for baiting (whatever the legal term is).
Reply
Alex (Who am I?)
3 months ago
“What’s the worst that can happen to someone who refuses to pay such a settlement?”
A settlement is basically just a contract.
If she doesn’t pay, according to the terms of the contract, then she could, of course, be sued for breaching that contract.
Then more fees, more costs, more damages.
The only people that can put you in jail is the government. Since the settlement is between one private citizen, Barker, and another private citizen, the RIAA - the government isn’t involved.
There are no debtor’s prisons in the USA. Debtor’s prisons were something the founding fathers really hated about the King. I wonder if the UK still has debtor’s prisons?
Reply
weatherman (Who am I?)
3 months ago
A settlement means that she agreed to pay that - as in, she chose to admit her wrongdoing and pay a fee. But yes, should she fail to pay they can garnish wages. They cannot put her in jail in a civil matter for failure to pay the settlement. There is potential criminal liability (which means jail time) in copyright cases though, so they could try to press that should she fail to pay her settlement.
Nicholas: I recommend going over some basic intellectual property FAQs to understand the basics of copyright & trademark issues, and the difference between civil and criminal matters. It’s important that you understand these issues as a journalist in this space. I’m not trying to be condescending - I just think a primer in these topics is important for everyone who writes about them.
http://usinfo.state.gov/products/pubs/intelprp/
Reply
Linda (Who am I?)
3 months ago
Criminal charges can result in jail time. Civil charges can result in monetary awards or settlements. Which can then be claimed in bankruptcy. So no guarantee of payment when you sue and win. I don’t know if this went to trial or was an actual settlement. It’s not clear in the original post nor the links.
The RIAA can only sue civilly. They can’t press criminal charges (unless you show up in their office and slap each of them - and note I’m not recommending that but I’m sure it would give a moment or two of great satisfaction to and including the recording artists that get screwed and tattooed by them also).
Reply