Unfortunately, Subby, neither his student loans nor the lawsuit judgement are dischargable at bankruptcy.

That said, maybe he should go after his lawyer for malpractice.

This is pants on head retarded.

In other news, if you get caught violating someone's copyright, you really did it, you really meant to do it, and you know they really caught you, it's probably a good idea to accept a settlement.

the 30 songs he was "sharing":

MC Hammer - Please Hammer Don't Hurt Em
MC Hammer - Inside Out (V)

wow... that's worse punishment than robbing a cd store.

came in looking for either the Emperor or Mr Burns ... going to have to do it myself.....


/leaving satisfied

violentsalvation: what_now: Student loans are not discharged in bankruptcy.

/This kid got hosed.

I doubt bankruptcy would discharge this ridiculous court-ordered restitution either. I don't know what the hell subby is trying to say.

Yeah as far as I know judgments are not removed from bankruptcy, that high amount pretty much ensures that he could never possibly make any real money for the rest of his life so he should either save up some money then move to somewhere like The DR or just pretend to be insane and get on disability.

Bankruptcy will not release him from student loans, but it's a great way to toss this judgement provided he has no real assets to protect beyond what bankruptcy law provides for.

/ not a lawyer
// but kicked ass in the law test for the FLBA centuries ago
/// pretty sure only child care settlements cannot be tossed in terms of judgements....but see first slashie again

I don't think you can wipe out student loans. But I'm not sure about that.

what_now: Student loans are not discharged in bankruptcy.

What I came in here to say.

Student loans are a type of debt that are almost impossible to get rid of. You're stuck with them.

what if he just bought those songs on iTunes now? it would prove that he "owns" them. or buy the cds and lose the receipts.

pute kisses like a man: wow... that's worse punishment than robbing a cd store.

Well, the theory is that it's so easy to do and unlikely to get caught, that you need a more severe consequence. Odd principle, but it's guided the legal system for hundreds of years.

he can probably have his student loans discharged now that they are an undue hardship,

Welcome to debt slavery.

WTF is "statistical physics"?

Also, for those of you bemoaning the fine, here's some simple advice: don't steal. I used Napster back in the way-back days of file sharing (from a friend of a friend's computer, so no one's coming after me), and I knew it was stealing when I did. I knew it was wrong. So does everyone who file shares. And we've all read enough of these stories to know what the potential consequences are if you get caught. So, fair warning for all. You want to keep BitTorrenting to save yourself the 99 cents ITunes will charge you? Fine. But don't come crying to me when you get sued for $500,000. You are free to disagree with the law all you want, but you'll find that's not a defense.

This is the kind of legal judgment that has me rooting for the kid to just resort to murder to discharge his debts.

Kill the farking lawyers already, each one, from his original stupid Harvard Law School lawyer, Charles Nesson, through the RIAA's lawyers, including Hilary Rosen.

We need more lawyer murders.

scottydoesntknow: If I were him I would be on a one-way flight out of this country, never to return.

Yes he deserves punishment (mainly for being stupid enough to get caught), but that's beyond excessive. It's a financial death penalty.

Exactly. Find a nice, warm country without extradition, and set yourself up teaching English. While you're there, write a book about how the RIAA stole your country.

Don't forget to enjoy the socialized medicine while you're there.

/I think I just talked myself into coming along.

Wow. I am all for fining people who get caught downloading this, but that is way over the top. I think that they need to use actual theft for determining the amount of the fine. For example, it would, worst case scenario, require the person to steal 30 CDs to get those 30 songs. Therefore they should assume that he stole 30 CDs (or even less if one or more songs are found on the same CD) and use that to determine the punishment. This arbitrarily determining of fines for electronic theft is retarded.

The Royalty Tenenbaums?

/got nothing
//but outrage at the system, the riaa, and big music

what_now: Student loans are not discharged in bankruptcy.

/This kid got hosed himself

if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Don't do it.

Besides, they offered to settle for $5,000 and he said no.

Uberunder: You are free to disagree with the law all you want, but you'll find that's not a defense.

If other tax payers have to pick up the slack because this kid was sued for a ridiculous amount of money and now can't participate in society that creates a situation where we have to effectively pay this judgement.

Uberunder: WTF is "statistical physics"?

Also, for those of you bemoaning the fine, here's some simple advice: don't steal. I used Napster back in the way-back days of file sharing (from a friend of a friend's computer, so no one's coming after me), and I knew it was stealing when I did. I knew it was wrong. So does everyone who file shares. And we've all read enough of these stories to know what the potential consequences are if you get caught. So, fair warning for all. You want to keep BitTorrenting to save yourself the 99 cents ITunes will charge you? Fine. But don't come crying to me when you get sued for $500,000. You are free to disagree with the law all you want, but you'll find that's not a defense.

I fully agree with the basic tenet to simply not steal. But, if you steal a CD in a store you will be charged with at most a misdemeanor (unless you happen to steal a CD worth over $500!). And what will that amount to? Probably a fine of $100-$500 at most. And that is going to be for something like 10 songs. So why should the determination for the fine be different if you download a song?

jvl: In other news, if you get caught violating someone's copyright, you really did it, you really meant to do it, and you know they really caught you, it's probably a good idea to accept a settlement.

I'm 100% sure if someone sued a corporation for tens of millions of dollars after they dumped toxic waste in some town's water supply and a bunch of kids got cancer you would be screaming for damage caps.

RIAA suing college students is what a real frivolous lawsuit looks like.

what_now: Student loans are not discharged in bankruptcy.

/This kid got hosed.

this

Mock26: Wow. I am all for fining people who get caught downloading this, but that is way over the top. I think that they need to use actual theft for determining the amount of the fine. For example, it would, worst case scenario, require the person to steal 30 CDs to get those 30 songs. Therefore they should assume that he stole 30 CDs (or even less if one or more songs are found on the same CD) and use that to determine the punishment. This arbitrarily determining of fines for electronic theft is retarded.

1. He shared those 30 songs with others.
2. Fines are never purely based on the value of what you took, since there would be every incentive to steal. (Steal a car for $30k, worse case is you have to pay $30k, best case is you have to pay $0).

/yeah, yeah, it is not "stealing" .

what the asshat did is the typical entitlement mentality of "i want something, not willing to pay for it, i deserve it anyway".

for that, the fine should be double the 22,500 per song.

violentsalvation: I doubt bankruptcy would discharge this ridiculous court-ordered restitution either. I don't know what the hell subby is trying to say.

With a decent bankruptcy lawyer, the kid could probably discharge the judgment (but not the student loans).

As relevant here, the types of debts that are not dischargeable in bankruptcy would be these from 11 USC 523(a):

(a) A discharge under section 727, 1141, 1228 (a), 1228 (b), or 1328 (b) of this title does not discharge an individual debtor from any debt-

(4) for fraud or defalcation while acting in a fiduciary capacity, embezzlement, or larceny;
(6) for willful and malicious injury by the debtor to another entity or to the property of another entity;
(7) to the extent such debt is for a fine, penalty, or forfeiture payable to and for the benefit of a governmental unit, and is not compensation for actual pecuniary loss, other than a tax penalty-
(13) for any payment of an order of restitution issued under title 18, United States Code;

I have a hard time seeing how you can get "fraud or defalcation" out of the circumstances here, so (4) is probably out. (7) and (13) are both related to criminal-type fines that are payable to the U.S. As I understand it here, this is a civil suit by the RIAA, with thejudgment payable to the RIAA, so those wouldn't apply.

Which leaves us with (6) -- "willful and malicious injury." You could make the argument that his actions were willful, but I think you'd have a hard time proving that the kid acted with malice in order to harm the RIAA. Thus, I'd be willing to bet that he could (and will) file a Chapter 7 petition as soon as the judgment was final.

Oznog: pute kisses like a man: wow... that's worse punishment than robbing a cd store.

Well, the theory is that it's so easy to do and unlikely to get caught, that you need a more severe consequence. Odd principle, but it's guided the legal system for hundreds of years.

I didn't know these were punitive damages. the article didn't describe the breakdown.

tenpoundsofcheese: what_now: Student loans are not discharged in bankruptcy.

/This kid got hosed himself

if you can't do the time, don't do the crime. Don't do it.

Besides, they offered to settle for $5,000 and he said no.

Well that's still an absurd amount that is way out of proportion

Especially after he admitted he was downloading Greenday songs

pute kisses like a man: wow... that's worse punishment than robbing a cd store.

Or driving a gay dude to suicide.

SCOTUS has made it clear that corporations have more rights than individual poeple....so fark you and bow down to your new corporate masters.

RoyBatty: This is the kind of legal judgment that has me rooting for the kid to just resort to murder to discharge his debts.

Kill the farking lawyers already, each one, from his original stupid Harvard Law School lawyer, Charles Nesson, through the RIAA's lawyers, including Hilary Rosen.

We need more lawyer murders.

What i find really quite funny about this type of sentiment is that what you are mad at is not lawyers but clients. Your main issue, if i may guess, is that you dislike the RIAA. You think that they have treated this boy unfairly in seeking maximum statutory damages for his fairly provable breach of the law. I am not so sure what the lawyers have done here that so offends your sense of decency other than thier duty to their asshole (in your mind) clients.

Now you could be arguing that lawyers shouldn't take jobs from asshole clients. Fair enough i suppose. But why stop there. All jobs should stop working for people you find objectionable! No fries for you mister corporate fat cat! No laundry today! and so on. Seems rather silly to me but at least your ire would make sense.

Perhaps instead you are mad at the people who wrote the law. While I am sure that many of them were lawyers (and that the language of the damages section of the copyright act were in fact drafted by lawyers) that should be irrelevant to your anger, because they are acting in their capacity as legislators. Their day job should be pointless. I am sure doctors, french teachers, car salesmen etc in the house all voted for those terms. So why the special focus on those who work as agents of the court?

Mock26: Uberunder: WTF is "statistical physics"?

Also, for those of you bemoaning the fine, here's some simple advice: don't steal. I used Napster back in the way-back days of file sharing (from a friend of a friend's computer, so no one's coming after me), and I knew it was stealing when I did. I knew it was wrong. So does everyone who file shares. And we've all read enough of these stories to know what the potential consequences are if you get caught. So, fair warning for all. You want to keep BitTorrenting to save yourself the 99 cents ITunes will charge you? Fine. But don't come crying to me when you get sued for $500,000. You are free to disagree with the law all you want, but you'll find that's not a defense.

I fully agree with the basic tenet to simply not steal. But, if you steal a CD in a store you will be charged with at most a misdemeanor (unless you happen to steal a CD worth over $500!). And what will that amount to? Probably a fine of $100-$500 at most. And that is going to be for something like 10 songs. So why should the determination for the fine be different if you download a song?

I propose damage caps in frivolous RIAA lawsuits. Limit damages to only what the RIAA can prove they actually lost as a result of the illegal downloading. That is, in addition to proving that someone copied their song, they have to prove that the alleged infringer would have paid for the song but for the illegal downloading. And then damages should be capped at the actual value of the song had the infringer purchased it.

In this era of tort reform, this is a reasonable compromise on this issue.

Everyone--everyone--who defends this damage award is an authoritarian bootlicker. Nothing more.