Comments on: $5 per Month is the New De Facto Fine for the RIAA http://thomashawk.com/2005/05/5-per-month-is-new-de-facto-fine-for.html Fri, 10 Feb 2012 02:09:43 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1 By: Kevin Cannon http://thomashawk.com/2005/05/5-per-month-is-new-de-facto-fine-for.html/comment-page-1#comment-19750 Kevin Cannon Wed, 18 May 2005 06:01:00 +0000 http://clients.emmense.com/thomashawk/?p=3821#comment-19750 That argument is totally wrong.<br /><br />The RIAA don't sue people for downloading music -- they sue people for sharing it.<br /><br />If oen person shares music with 100 people then it's $5 per month multiplied by the amount of people they shared with.<br /><br />And even then, when you're caught doing something wrong, you usually have to pay more than it would have cost to legally do it. That's the way fines work anyway. That argument is totally wrong.

The RIAA don’t sue people for downloading music — they sue people for sharing it.

If oen person shares music with 100 people then it’s $5 per month multiplied by the amount of people they shared with.

And even then, when you’re caught doing something wrong, you usually have to pay more than it would have cost to legally do it. That’s the way fines work anyway.

]]>