HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
Confirming what we posted here last week, Sony has announced that it would post a record $3 billion loss and undergo major restructuring that includes layoffs and factory closings.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
Sony Expects Record $3 Billion Loss
- Thread starter HardOCP News
- Start date
In October 2007, it was announced that Sony BMG successfully sued Jammie Thomas. The single mother, who made US$36,000 a year, was ordered to pay US$222,220 in damages for making 24 songs available for download on the Kazaa file-sharing network. Thomas is currently appealing the decision.
Do I feel sorry.....fuck no.
Do I feel sorry.....fuck no.
Inacurate
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 520
So she got caught doing something illegal and is trying to now get out of it?
Only in America are you able to LEGALLY get out of being held responsible for your own illegal actions!! Hopefully Obama changes that kinda BS too!
I feel bad for the workers who are going to be out jobs, but not the management decisions( or lack thereof) that brought them to this point. Those managers should be fired first and foremost, which may be exactly what they are doing with their "major restructuring."
Only in America are you able to LEGALLY get out of being held responsible for your own illegal actions!! Hopefully Obama changes that kinda BS too!
I feel bad for the workers who are going to be out jobs, but not the management decisions( or lack thereof) that brought them to this point. Those managers should be fired first and foremost, which may be exactly what they are doing with their "major restructuring."
Yeah, that's about 7 times her salary. Not cool at all. I hate when they use people as an example rather than punish them fittingly.
That being said, this is just more bad news with the economy in a slump. Someone's probably going to say that it's the ps3's fault or some nonsense. I expected just about every major electronics company to post seriously reduced profits or even losses when this all started.
At least we're not talking about a company like circuit city here. Sony's got a little staying power.
That being said, this is just more bad news with the economy in a slump. Someone's probably going to say that it's the ps3's fault or some nonsense. I expected just about every major electronics company to post seriously reduced profits or even losses when this all started.
At least we're not talking about a company like circuit city here. Sony's got a little staying power.
Enduring_Warrior
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2004
- Messages
- 1,973
Don't worry. His claims are Inacurate.
It depends, you need to look at all the legal costs, coverage, court costs, you need to look at the investigative costs, police costs, you also need to look at the non-monetary costs of having police and court systems tied up for this case.
So yeah, the cost is fitting, becase I as a tax payer don't want to pay for her illegal sharing.
Secondly, if she was given a $10k fine, she would be appealing that too.
DeathFromBelow
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Jul 15, 2005
- Messages
- 7,315
Well, at least they are the leaders of the console industry. 
And she would loose the appeal, but because the fine is so outrageously high she is going to win. Also the fact that they didn't prosecute anyone else when thousands are doing the same thing doesn't help either. It's like giving a $100,000.00 speeding ticket.
100% of your income tax goes to pay interest on money the US barrows from the federal reserve, if you are concerned where to tax money is going fight this problem. this will cost you a fraction of a fraction of a cent.
Sorry for taking this off topic just wanted to express my lack of sympathy for poor Sony records.
piscian18
[H]F Junkie
- Joined
- Jul 26, 2005
- Messages
- 11,020
I hope sony burns in hell. I have a more personal axe to grind with them, but it's funny how much guff microsoft got over the xbox360 fuck up considering no PS2 before the v5 is still running and they openly and knowingly use cheap unreliable parts.
deception``
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2005
- Messages
- 473
(Slightly off-topic)
Unless her case was moved to federal court, she was tried at the state level. Most states are constitutionally required to balance their budgets, so your borrowed money analogy (while completely fitting in a federal sense) likely would not apply. The penalty certainly is ridiculous, but Ockie's point still remains valid - there are many indirect costs with trying such a case. This isn't an argument for or against the position; rather, it's simply a matter of fact.
Secondly, wishing harm to the company is irresponsible. I know it's convential wisdom to think that large conglomerates are nothing but executives and directors, but the reality is that their reach is much larger than some would think. Consider some of the parties affected by Sony's loss(es).
The thousands of direct employees that will or have been laid off (necessarily so, but unfortunate) as a result of their overall losses.
Indirect employees (such as truck-drivers, and wharehouse workers, and logistic-managers) that will be affected by a likely reduction in supply and shipments.
The decline of their stock price that directly affect Sony employee pensions (particularly if they are heavily invested in their own stock.
The pension plans and mutual funds that, while well diversified, may have companies such as Sony listed in their portfolio. These may include the pension plans of you and me, and also teachers, policeman, firefighters, and so on.
I could go on, but the bottom line is that companies, particularly publicly-traded ones, have a huge reach and their demise or decline will affect more people than most of us think.
Inacurate
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 520
No, and I wouldn't argue that point, but Ockie said it best...regardless of the fine, she would be trying to appeal it.
But none of the arguments that side with this lady matter, she got caught doing something illegal. Period. She should be punished. End of that discussion.
If you wanted to discuss the punishment, that would be another topic of conversation, my point was the fact that she was trying to get out of her punishment, regardless of what it was!
And that you saying you don't feel sorry for the company and the reason is that they sued some lady over 24 songs, is just not right! It's right for them to sue and win the case, but the punishment should be a bit more reasonable.
TechLarry
RIP [H] Brother - June 1, 2022
- Joined
- Aug 9, 2005
- Messages
- 30,481
2/3 of that is probably bad batteries...
Pepsiennis
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2007
- Messages
- 1,290
Perhaps I'm off-topic the off-topic discussion, but Sony can (unfortunately) bear the burden of the loss. That is short-term, but for a company that has comparatively little diversification beyond expensive and more-expensive, the long term can't be rosie.
Didn't/dont want to get into a huge rant on why I don't like Sony records but it's more than just that case, and it's also more than just sony records most record companies need to be reformed/bankrupt.
Didn't know it was tried at state level, but most people who worked on that case are getting paid the same weather or not this case even happened, and if they weren't then that is just more unemployment.
To others; Sony is broken down in many area's this is just pertaining to Sony Records (the music side). Nothing to do with PS3 or Batteries.
Didn't know it was tried at state level, but most people who worked on that case are getting paid the same weather or not this case even happened, and if they weren't then that is just more unemployment.
To others; Sony is broken down in many area's this is just pertaining to Sony Records (the music side). Nothing to do with PS3 or Batteries.
Why didn't she just use Itunes then, but yeah, that is quite a ridiculous amount to charge per song
HardOCP News
[H] News
- Joined
- Dec 31, 1969
- Messages
- 0
That's your "point"?
Considering it was the judge in the case, not Jammie Thomas, that reversed his own decision because he improperly instructed the jury. "Making the music available" is not proof she shared anything.
Did she download the songs? Probably.
Did she deserve the punishment of almost $10k a song? Probably not.
Did jurors admit they wanted to "send a message," and that "her defense sucked"...yes.
Did jurors admit they had never used the internet before...yes.
Anyhow, it was the JUDGE in the case that has moved for a retrial, not Jammie Thomas or her "sucky" defense lawyer
Damn near ever person on this forum has 24 songs they didn't pay for. Do you think everyone here should cough up the $10k per song to the RIAA? They knew what they were doing...c'mon, say everyone is a bunch of copyright infringing bastards that owe the RIAA money.
alg7_munif
Supreme [H]ardness
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2006
- Messages
- 5,862
If she only donwloads then the fine is quite high but if she uploads the songs and another 100 people download the songs from her, $24.00 x 100 = $2400. If another thousand people download the songs, another million people....
You need to think like the RIAA
If she only donwloads then the fine is quite high but if she uploads the songs and another 100 people download the songs from her, $24.00 x 100 = $2400. If another thousand people download the songs, another million people....
You need to think like the RIAA
thats the thing the RIAA never proved ANY ONE then downloaded from her
you can guess and say its likely but that doesnt hold up in court
and really there is no way to prove it other then see it happen
and to do that would mean hacking the persons PC which in the case of the RIAA would get them in more hotwater then the person being sued seeing as INFRINGMENT is civil law
and well hacking is a criminal issue
Moose&Squirrel
n00b
- Joined
- May 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10
I think part of this may be related to the strength of the yen over the last year.
Inacurate
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 520
I see what you are trying to say, but really think about what you are saying before discussing this.
She did wrong, and that wrong was making the songs available for others to download as well as downloading them herself. Why does it matter, why does Sony have to prove, if people did in fact download them from her? Her wrongdoing was making them available. Whether or not someone downloaded them from her is a moot point, but because of the way our legal system works, it is a point that matters for some unknown reason. Oh wait, the reason is because over the past 100 years people are constantly trying to get out of being responsible for their actions!
Probably not indeed, but it is open for debate whether the price is to much, or even to little. Why do we have death sentences? People felt it was an appropriate punishment for a set of actions. What has been happening over the years? Opinion on the punishment has changed. But the reasoning behind why they came about was prolly not far from "to make an example of them."
For all we know, next year opinion will be saying $100k per song is more acceptable!
Why the jurors were doing it is irrelevant to all this, their reasoning is their own. They got selected to be jurors, no one outside of the judge should care, or even know, about their reasonings. Again, knowing why only helps people who are in most cases trying to get out of their responsibility.
Why would that even matter? Does a juror who is on a murder trial have needed to committ a murder to compently do their job? No, that is what the facts are for! If the facts are not clear enough for them to do their job, then something is wrong with the system. Which I am sure we can all agree with.
Again, is the system is broken fix it. No wait, it is easier to simply do a retrial than to fix an inherently bad system! And, further more...if she wasn't trying to get out of her responsibility, she would be accepting the verdict and punishment and not allowing it to be retried. But she is hoping for either punishment or for things to go her way. If it's a punishment that is "acceptable" to the convicted, how exactly is it punishment? People don't want to be punished, they shouldn't be O.K. with being on the receiving end of it, regardless of what the punishment is!
Her passive acceptance of a retrail is proof enough she is trying to get out of something. I don't need a jury to tell me that, it is now human nature to shun off accountability and responsibility!!
Almost everyone is a copyright infringing bastard that owes the RIAA money! But just because we don't agree with how they go about protecting their business, doesn't mean we should get a say in it! If I ever downloaded music and then shared it back and got caught with my hand in the cookie jar, I'm not going to run to a lawyer and then later when I lose the battle cry for my mom because I think it's to much money!
I'm going to suck it up like a man and own up to my actions and claim responsibility for them. While the punishment is certainly going overboard, we are to blame for allowing the trend of pirating music to continue.
Everyone who knows someone who downloads music is an accessory, for either not getting that person to stop, or for not turning them in to the authorities.
Yeah, I am niave in that I think if you see someone doing something illegal, you should turn them in. The world would be a much better place....oh wait, but that is considered being a "rat" or "tattletailing" right? Childish comments to keep people from doing the right thing, because heaven forbid they can't be trusted if they tell on someone else!
TL;DW ...haha
She did wrong, and that wrong was making the songs available for others to download as well as downloading them herself. Why does it matter, why does Sony have to prove, if people did in fact download them from her? Her wrongdoing was making them available. Whether or not someone downloaded them from her is a moot point, but because of the way our legal system works, it is a point that matters for some unknown reason. Oh wait, the reason is because over the past 100 years people are constantly trying to get out of being responsible for their actions!
Probably not indeed, but it is open for debate whether the price is to much, or even to little. Why do we have death sentences? People felt it was an appropriate punishment for a set of actions. What has been happening over the years? Opinion on the punishment has changed. But the reasoning behind why they came about was prolly not far from "to make an example of them."
For all we know, next year opinion will be saying $100k per song is more acceptable!
Why the jurors were doing it is irrelevant to all this, their reasoning is their own. They got selected to be jurors, no one outside of the judge should care, or even know, about their reasonings. Again, knowing why only helps people who are in most cases trying to get out of their responsibility.
Why would that even matter? Does a juror who is on a murder trial have needed to committ a murder to compently do their job? No, that is what the facts are for! If the facts are not clear enough for them to do their job, then something is wrong with the system. Which I am sure we can all agree with.
Anyhow, it was the JUDGE in the case that has moved for a retrial, not Jammie Thomas or her "sucky" defense lawyer
Again, is the system is broken fix it. No wait, it is easier to simply do a retrial than to fix an inherently bad system! And, further more...if she wasn't trying to get out of her responsibility, she would be accepting the verdict and punishment and not allowing it to be retried. But she is hoping for either punishment or for things to go her way. If it's a punishment that is "acceptable" to the convicted, how exactly is it punishment? People don't want to be punished, they shouldn't be O.K. with being on the receiving end of it, regardless of what the punishment is!
Her passive acceptance of a retrail is proof enough she is trying to get out of something. I don't need a jury to tell me that, it is now human nature to shun off accountability and responsibility!!
Damn near ever person on this forum has 24 songs they didn't pay for. Do you think everyone here should cough up the $10k per song to the RIAA? They knew what they were doing...c'mon, say everyone is a bunch of copyright infringing bastards that owe the RIAA money.
Almost everyone is a copyright infringing bastard that owes the RIAA money!
But just because we don't agree with how they go about protecting their business, doesn't mean we should get a say in it! If I ever downloaded music and then shared it back and got caught with my hand in the cookie jar, I'm not going to run to a lawyer and then later when I lose the battle cry for my mom because I think it's to much money!I'm going to suck it up like a man and own up to my actions and claim responsibility for them. While the punishment is certainly going overboard, we are to blame for allowing the trend of pirating music to continue.
Everyone who knows someone who downloads music is an accessory, for either not getting that person to stop, or for not turning them in to the authorities.
Yeah, I am niave in that I think if you see someone doing something illegal, you should turn them in. The world would be a much better place....oh wait, but that is considered being a "rat" or "tattletailing" right? Childish comments to keep people from doing the right thing, because heaven forbid they can't be trusted if they tell on someone else!
TL;DW ...haha
Inacurate you must have been one of the jury. Because your Law first logic second mentality is needed for this type of thing to happen.
Laws are made by humans which in tern are not perfect or up to date.
http://www.dumblaws.com
In Arizona you can get 25 years in prison for cutting down a cactus.......it's the law better not question it.
Laws are made by humans which in tern are not perfect or up to date.
http://www.dumblaws.com
In Arizona you can get 25 years in prison for cutting down a cactus.......it's the law better not question it.
Inacurate
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 520
If I had been I would have pushed for a more reasonable punitive damage to reduce the chance the guilty part had for appealing because of a "punishment that didn't fit the crime."
I know I have a messed up sense of justice, but logic comes first for me and then the law. As long as logic is working correctly( with a predetermined right and wrong set of instructions ) then the law would be followed. This lady wasn't using logic, knew what she was doing what illegal, and prolly did not know legal actions could be taken against her.
But I am sure she still knew she was doing something wrong, which as soon as you come to that realization you should stop. But even if you do stop, that doesn't preclude you from having actions taken against you!
I completely agree with a number of laws on the books that are out of date and utterly asinine, but does that mean we get to break them regardless? If the system is broken and not removing these outdated laws, that doesn't give us the right to break them, even if the reasoning behind why the laws were established is no longer relevant!!
Why didn't you link the reason for the law though, I have to ask?
Seems like a fairly decent reason to have the law. Is the punishment fit for the crime? More than likely not, but is someone going to be stupid enough to break that law knowing the punishment? Hopefully not. Do people anyways? You bet! What to do with these people? Make an example out of them. What about the ones who claim ignorance? Personally, I say let natural selection do its thing, but that's not the right thing to do. But these people who HONESTLY didn't know what they were doing was wrong should be able to pass a lie detection test. Those who are faking ignorance, should get the 25 years. But since they can claim ignorance, they can fight the law. Fairly easy law to be ignorant of though, LOL.
The system we have now has resulted from all the years of this society doing just that, breaking laws, fighting them, winning the case and then the next time the same law is in court the judge has precedence to fall back on and then the law is relaxed that much further. Or tightened.
It's an imperfect system by EVERY stretch of the imagination when so much gets left up to interpretation. It it gets fueled by people claiming "ignorance!"
I really think Moose is on a good path too, the yen has been strong compared to a lot of other currencies.....why does it get punished by doing better again?
Inacurate
Gawd
- Joined
- Aug 25, 2004
- Messages
- 520
Crap, lock me up!
The GF and I were just doing this at Chili's over in Nashua!
Now that is just a silly law, has no reasoning behind it on the website either. I wonder how it came to be though? Huh.
The GF and I were just doing this at Chili's over in Nashua!
Now that is just a silly law, has no reasoning behind it on the website either. I wonder how it came to be though? Huh.
I think people have died from cacti falling on them after the cacti had been shot.
Probably to keep the devil's music from tempting you.