Wiley Miller (Non Sequitur) thinks $1.9M is a fair punish…

Discussions about other webcomics, newspaper strips and comic books
Post Reply
User avatar
Supreme Ruler and Dictator-for-Life
Posts: 10274
Joined: 08 Sep 2008, 15:04
Location: Waiblingen, Germany

Wiley Miller (Non Sequitur) thinks $1.9M is a fair punish…

Post by Novil » 20 Jun 2009, 11:08

… ment for sharing 24 songs on the file sharing system Kazzaa (more info about the case):
“Does anybody seriously think going after the little people and common web-surfer, and destroying this one woman’s life, is going to solve this problem?”

“Wow… that’s cold, Wiley.”

Holding people accountable for theft is “cold”?

Gladly, this sick judgment is just another nail in the coffin of the music industry. Ruining the lives of people for a damage worth two music CDs is absolutely unethical and will give them even more negative publicity.

I have stopped buying products distributed by the music industry long ago. The artists only get pennies of the profits anyway. Instead, most of the profit seems to be used to pay expensive lawyers for even more lawsuits.

And whoever is of the opinion that ruining the life of somebody for a first time small-scale offense is the right thing to do is morally bankrupt.

So I certainly won’t buy any “Non Sequitur” comic book collection in the future.

Sandra and Woo | Sandra und Woo auf Deutsch
Gaia | Gaia auf Deutsch

"Don't be someone who they forget!"
User avatar
Secretary General
Posts: 1389
Joined: 06 Apr 2009, 04:40

Re: Wiley Miller (Non Sequitur) thinks $1.9M is a fair punish…

Post by Neveko » 23 Jun 2009, 02:48

His comic is absolutely dry of any amusement factor, anyway. I skip his comics in the Sunday paper.

Also, I paid for downloading from Kazaa by having my computer suicide with the "blue screen of death" due to it being laden with soooo many viruses and spywares. It's okay, though, that computer was oooooold. I've never used Kazaa since, though. (And, actually, Kazaa caused that computer to "blue screen" twice, but we successfully resurrected it once.)
User avatar
Posts: 56
Joined: 17 Jul 2009, 10:47

Re: Wiley Miller (Non Sequitur) thinks $1.9M is a fair punish…

Post by Rabid_Fox » 17 Jul 2009, 11:16

Anyone who knows anything about music knows that recording music traps its soul and makes the song cry. An entire industry based on enslaving melodies until they don't even have the spirit left to lift their eyes at feeding time? It's a shame, I tell you, a dread shame.

The only way to stop music piracy is to get to the source of the problem - stop music. Oh, like we'd miss it, it's only maths you can hear.
Oh my.
User avatar
Ninja Skunk
Posts: 37
Joined: 15 Feb 2009, 06:55
Location: In America!

A Very Conservative Perspective

Post by Ninja Skunk » 09 Aug 2009, 03:38

Umm...Did Kazzaa change recently, then? As far as I can see, it's a subscription-based licensed music download site now...with one less 'z.'

To the point, though. I know and understand that people will hate me for this, but I'm going to have to say that the $1,900,000 fine is at least partially fair, too. I don't share Wiley Miller's view that it is simply holding a person accountable for theft; Rather, I see it as holding this one person accountable for everything she has done during the events of this case. I base my stance on the following points:
  • The woman uploaded twenty-four songs to Kazzaa. Twenty-four songs would only be worth two CDs, but that would be two CD sales lost per download, not upload. If all twenty-four songs were downloaded only a thousand times (it would probably be far greater), then, even at just $10 an album, the music industry's losses would be around twenty thousand dollars. It's a far cry from the $1.9 million penalty, but this is also considerably more than common shoplifting.
  • The woman had the option to settle with the RIAA. RIAA settlements averaged out at three thousand dollars (less than the damage than she had actually caused, if the above is true), but rather than even considering the option, the woman took it straight to court, falsely knowing that the court would find her innocent. From where I stand, If she was honestly innocent, she would have tried to settle first, taking it to court only if the RIAA was being unreasonable. Rather, though, the woman went straight to court in hopes that charge and penalty would be expunged, and she wouldn't have to deal with the consequences of her actions. This woman is both irresponsible and greedy.
  • The verdict was actually passed once earlier, and for only $222,000, which is probably the closest it had been to the damages the woman should have paid for losses and law infringement. Still, she kept pressing to have the charges removed or reduced. This is more proof of her greed and irresponsibility.
  • Based on the previous points, This woman knew what she was doing was wrong. Yet, one of the defenses mounted was that the offender was not the woman, but one (or more) of her children. Despite further proving her irresponsibility, the act of accusing her own children of a serious crime to cover herself also shines very poorly on this woman's character. The RIAA may be terrible for pressing a $1.9 million charge, but the woman was not above contemptible acts herself.
So, as far as I can see, the outlandish punishment of nearly two million dollars is not just for the damages caused by the woman smuggling music, but also punishing the woman for her actions and behavior. One thing I, and seemingly the jury of this case, understand is that the only way to convince people to stop committing such horrible acts is to issue punishments that are even more horrible. It is as if it was the jury stood up to say "You are mean, subversive, greedy, and reprehensible, and we will not have you doing this anymore!" Is this punishment gravely terrible? Yes. Yes, it is, but it also may be fair.

...Okay, that's my two cents worth. Please don't string me up.
John da surfer
Posts: 6
Joined: 02 Sep 2010, 19:54

Re: Wiley Miller (Non Sequitur) thinks $1.9M is a fair punish…

Post by John da surfer » 04 Sep 2010, 20:55

Based on that I agree because of the final argument on accounts of,
a phew things,
1 It’s unethical
1• Children being brought to court may be traumatic.[unethical & immoral]
2• She is using them as a shield[unethical & immoral]
Brow beating
1• It’s reasonable to conclude that this specific accusation, is used knowingly, to cause delays in the over all court case due to having to find out who downloaded what, where and why, on which computer (I think considering the list almost all of which has already been done before.).
Possible deliberate use of fallacious reasoning
1• i.e. (in this context), she may knowingly be falsely accusing her children.

Not to mention my emotional response would be raging if it turns out the children just happened to be… ah the story just get’s to typical.
Post Reply