In the first file-sharing case to go to trial, the RIAA is seeking up to $3.6 million

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by SpencerH
I'm so glad to have a comment from the peanut gallery. Perhaps you dont know the history behind peer to peer networking and are ignorant that it wasnt designed for uses such as Kazaa and others have put it to.

Your aim is really bad here. Especially since it appears your understanding of peer to peer networking is very limited...

[Vesayen]

This case will without any doubt go to appeal at the least she has a case due to the absurd amount of recovery they are making her pay.

If she gets a sympathetic judge or a retrial and a sympthetic jury, she could still walk owing nothing.

[Lefty Scaevola]

Originally posted by Provost Harrison
I think somewhere around £50 would be appropriate for the level of criminality here,

The minumum per item in the law is $750; the maximum goes up to 200 times that, presumably for large commercial operations. The jury came in at about 6% of the way from the minimum t the maximum. Given some of the defendents tetismony, directly negating the case if true, the verdict could only be had if the jury believed the defendent a perjurer with regard to it. Not a hard to do since she had already been proven to have lied in a sworn depostion earlier in the case. I well expect that believing her to be a liar and perjurer influnced where they set the damages. And Versayan, a known perjurer is never going to get a sympathetic judge.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Vesayen
This case will without any doubt go to appeal at the least she has a case due to the absurd amount of recovery they are making her pay.

Don't go out on a limb there.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by reismark
IMO, it doesn't look like the verdict is going to hold up. There's a major issue in how the presiding judge in the case advised the jury as far as the standard of liability:


Only problem is, the case that actually gave the RIAA's argument teeth was one the RIAA's lawyer didn't mention - Atlantic v. Howell. And there's a good reason they didn't: They won it in August, but then it got vacated.

Translation: No way in hell this verdict survives an appeal.

Why do you think a pretrial ruling in a pending case in a 9th circuit district court would have any precedence over a pending case in an 8th circuit district court?

[Provost Harrison]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Consider that the penalty should both be proportional to the crime and inversely proportional to the probability of getting caught.

By that logic you should give her the death penalty

[Lefty Scaevola]

A trademark infringer with a wharehouse full of conterfit jeans did not have to sell any before getting nailed, nor was it required to nail a copyright infriger with a suitcase full of bootleg CDs. Absent something controverting that standard in the infringment for other digtital music such as online, I do not see why an actual sale would be required in this case.

[Colonâ„¢]

Originally posted by Kuciwalker


Consider that the penalty should both be proportional to the crime and inversely proportional to the probability of getting caught.

Legality, subsidiarity, proportionality and inversiality?

[Kuciwalker]

I don't get the reference.

[Victor Galis]

Still an utterly ridiculous amount to expect an individual to pay, regardless of circumstances.

[Kuciwalker]

They don't expect the individual to pay it.

[Jon Miller]

I can see how downloading something is stealing. I can't see how putting something up on the network is stealing though.

What others do with that information is up to them.. you aren't involved in it.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

JM, you're intelligent. Do I really have to walk this through with you?

[Victor Galis]

I actually kinda look at it as the opposite. Downloading music that you wouldn't have bought in the first place, doesn't really cause them damages. Putting up the same music for other people to download is a whole other can of worms.

I mean you can argue that the downloader should compensate the producer for the value derived, but in the case of songs that they wouldn't have paid for, this compensation would have to be less than the actual cost of the CD because they wouldn't have bought it at the price of the CD.

[Kuciwalker]

You need an uploader for a downloader. Two willing participants in one act - if that act is a crime, both are culpable.