arstechnica.com— A lawsuit accusing the RIAA and record labels for malicious prosecution was dealt a blow with a judge's ruling that the labels had a reasonable basis for their original legal action.
Nov 16, 2009View in Crawl 4
In celebration, the RIAA sent the judge a complementary set of antique shackles and leg irons; "Here's to the day when those who wrote the rules got their pound of justice!"The judge had to return the gift, as it could seem like a bribe or at least a conflict of interest. Since he already had $50,000 in an offshore account -- no reason to make people suspicious..../fantasy theory -- who knows, it could be true
OK the RIAA loses 200 mp3 music sales to some lady in Hoboken -- which she might never have gotten if she had to pay, but she probably bought maybe 8 albums that year.So they give her a punishment of $20,000 per MP3 on the offhand chance that it MIGHT have been spread around the world from just her and resulted in a lot of other people who MIGHT have paid for this music had their only option been at a store. You can't really prove damages -- so you make up a number out of thin air.Now this person's life is over -- whether or not they are innocent, because there is no way they can hire enough legal council to fight off the RIAA.We spend more tax dollars protecting these jerk off's revenue than we spend making sure you don't eat Spinach with botulism on it.
Its not that simple. The RIAA never loses one of these cases, because the deck is stacked in their favor. If the case appears to be going poorly, they dismiss the case (as happened with Anderson). If things are going well, they take it all the way to judgment - there have been a couple of such cases, and the RIAA won both. Which means in two cases, a jury agreed that IP address is sufficient. Had Thomas and Tennenbaum not taken their weak cases to court, this argument could have been decided on technical merit alone.
grungegbunnyNov 16, 2009
How much was the judge paid off?
Closed AccountNov 16, 2009
Just whatever they fined a 13 year old kid for downloading some jonas brothers
vitriolandangstNov 16, 2009
In celebration, the RIAA sent the judge a complementary set of antique shackles and leg irons; "Here's to the day when those who wrote the rules got their pound of justice!"The judge had to return the gift, as it could seem like a bribe or at least a conflict of interest. Since he already had $50,000 in an offshore account -- no reason to make people suspicious..../fantasy theory -- who knows, it could be true
vitriolandangstNov 16, 2009
OK the RIAA loses 200 mp3 music sales to some lady in Hoboken -- which she might never have gotten if she had to pay, but she probably bought maybe 8 albums that year.So they give her a punishment of $20,000 per MP3 on the offhand chance that it MIGHT have been spread around the world from just her and resulted in a lot of other people who MIGHT have paid for this music had their only option been at a store. You can't really prove damages -- so you make up a number out of thin air.Now this person's life is over -- whether or not they are innocent, because there is no way they can hire enough legal council to fight off the RIAA.We spend more tax dollars protecting these jerk off's revenue than we spend making sure you don't eat Spinach with botulism on it.
fairdinkummateNov 17, 2009
I thought about responding logically but then I read your comment history.....
bdbrNov 17, 2009
Its not that simple. The RIAA never loses one of these cases, because the deck is stacked in their favor. If the case appears to be going poorly, they dismiss the case (as happened with Anderson). If things are going well, they take it all the way to judgment - there have been a couple of such cases, and the RIAA won both. Which means in two cases, a jury agreed that IP address is sufficient. Had Thomas and Tennenbaum not taken their weak cases to court, this argument could have been decided on technical merit alone.
moulin1Nov 18, 2009
Let's not forget "venue shopping". If they can find one idiot judge that buys their BS, they will bring every case in that jurisdiction.