Ruling stands: Brainerd woman must pay $222,000 for illegal music downloads

  • Article by: Dan Browning , Star Tribune
  • Updated: March 18, 2013 - 8:32 PM

The decision ends an eight-year battle between copyright owners and a Minnesota woman who is left owing $222,000 for sharing 24 songs online.

  • 38
  • Comments

  • Results per page:
marketing guyMar. 18, 13 5:23 PM

I believe you can buy most songs for .99/each on iTunes....this is a crazy case

jd55604Mar. 18, 13 5:43 PM

Who are these jurists that would award the copyright owners $80,000 per download? The jury selection sytem in this country must be very broken.

ironweedMar. 18, 13 5:45 PM

They could garnish her tribal per capita to satisfy the debt, problem solved.

bosshogMar. 18, 13 6:42 PM

It was not $80,000 per download. It was $80,000 per song! The number of downloads was not indicated. It could have been easily in the thousands per song. Furthermore they only sought compensation for 24 songs when she actually had put over 1700 songs on the server.

Grin0048Mar. 18, 13 6:53 PM

Whatever, the music industry and this pathetic woman (who seems to revel in her own irresponsibility) deserve each other.

holmescity49Mar. 18, 13 7:06 PM

Whoever onvinced that jury to the tune of $80,000.00 per song should be convicted of "jury tampering", either that or this had to be the most ignorant jurists ever empaneled. She wasn't stamping out CD's for resale to make an illegal profit. Illegal profiteering wouldn't even result in that award.

serfdumbMar. 18, 13 7:10 PM

She knew exactly what she was doing. Sharing and stealing music. Stealing someones intellictual property. How does one judge damage. I agree the jury was completely out of line. But, these are the same people that feel they are owed something, unfortunately our peers... It is a sad statement for what our culture has become.

datelessnerdMar. 18, 13 7:12 PM

Thanks for getting the story right. This woman was not punished for DOWNLOADING songs, but for UPLOADING them. Many people don't realize that when you use a peer-to-peer sharing application, you may be downloading and uploading at the same time, and your IP address can easily be tracked. The record companies use cases like this to scare people away from all unauthorized downloading, but they rely on the public's misunderstanding of technology and laws. You can get all the tunes you want for free with zero risk if you're not a complete idiot, like this woman.

datelessnerdMar. 18, 13 7:29 PM

@marketing guy: The price of downloading music has nothing to do with this case. She got nailed for uploading material for which is not the copyright owner. It doesn't matter how you acquire the tunes (iTunes, CD, peer-to-peer, file lockers, Flashgot, etc.), if you make it available for others to download -- then you're at risk.

svictoriaMar. 18, 13 7:33 PM

So how does a mother of four, with a full time job supposedly, find the time to download and upload songs on a file sharing network, unless, of course, it was done on "company" time?


Comment on this story   |  


Connect with twitterConnect with facebookConnect with Google+Connect with PinterestConnect with PinterestConnect with RssfeedConnect with email newsletters






question of the day

Poll: Can the Wild rally to win its playoff series against Colorado?

Weekly Question