How can the RIAA sue you for thousands of dollars?

[Jelsoft]

One thing I don't get is how can the RIAA sue you for thousands of dollars in damages?

If I share one CD on the internet it makes more sense that I owe the RIAA $20, the cost of the CD.

[at.morris]

Because if you were only sued $20, then there would be no deterent. If you get caught, so what? You pay the $20 that you would have had to pay anyway. By suing for millions (or more likely thousands by the time the case is settled), it puts people off breaking the law.

[rainbowdemon]

Originally posted by at.morris
Because if you were only sued $20, then there would be no deterent. If you get caught, so what? You pay the $20 that you would have had to pay anyway. By suing for millions (or more likely thousands by the time the case is settled), it puts people off breaking the law. Well, the death penalty is given for 1st degree murder. But if you watch the evening news, it does not appear to be much of a deterent! So, I don't think lawsuits in the millions is going to be either!!

[tennessee jed]

What I want to know is why they can sue me for thousands a song, while the only payback I get under the recent classa ction suit is a measly 13 bucks or so, after getting ripped off for literally decades! I would estimate that I have spent over 15 thousand dollars on music easily, and surely they could pony up at least 10 percent of that as compensation for price-fixing - am I right?!

[beardedwonder]

If you rob a shop at gunpoint but they only have £20 in the till and then get caught does that mean that your punishment should be to pay the £20 back only?

[BlueLieu]

You are all missing the point people. The penalty in any crime is supposed to be proportional to the damage incurred. What the fines per song is intended to rectify is the lost revenue realized by the recording industry because you obtained/distributed copies of copywritten material without paying them their "fair share". In the case of sticking up a store, you didn't just steal $20, but also the clerk's sense of safety, the owner's, the police response and court time.

In the case of copying a friend's CD and not sharing it further you may say that it is a deterrant effect, but the increased comfort you and those you influence have in carrying out this sort of illegal activity has argueably been spread and will be more likely to occur in the future.

That being said, the RIAA/MPAA can still kiss my ass.

[Wolfie]

I think the cost of how many ppl have downloaded that CD for free from you also ties into the calculation, not just the cost of the CD. Not only you are supposed paying (amount you are being sued for) for what you got for free but also what you have helped other ppl acquire for free by sharing.


Disclaimer: The previous statement does not reflects the views and opinions of this poster regarding p2p filesharing. All views( the really stupid ones) are solely the property of the RIAA.

[beardedwonder]

Originally posted by BlueLieu
That being said, the RIAA/MPAA can still kiss my ass.

WELL SAID!

[Muffin_Man]

civil cases arent the same as criminal ones. in a civil lawsuit the amount a person or company sues for is not the fair amount, but the amount they feel theyre entitiled to. its up to a judge to decide if thats what they really deserve, although the majority of cases dont get all the way through the legal system.

of course, if any of these cases ever made it through the system, no (clean) judge in their right mind would actually charge some kid millions of dollars. in reality it would probably be practically nothing. its entirely possible that the riaa would lose the case. the people being sued know this, as does the riaa, but they still have to settle because going through the courts is just too damn expensive, easily costing more than a $12,000 settlement.

in the end, these tactics are little more than extortion.

[Wolfie]

in the end, these tactics are little more than extortion.

Well said. There is no way the RIAA can even come close making up for their losses in the last couple of years by sueing individual users. They are trying force ppl out of the filesharing game by scare tactics and maybe making examples out of a very, very limited number ppl. After all you need spend money for legal actions and even if the RIAA wins most of the little ppl would end up paying thier settlement on payment plan not in bulk.

[Brycen257]

Muffin Man. You hit the nail right on the head .Its questionable whether the RIAA would even win any of these cases and I am sure they know it. I also doubt that even if they did win, most judges would award anything more than nominal damages for two reasons:

1. Most file sharers don't have huge piles of excess money. Its pointless to award a high amount of damages that will never be paid anyway.
2. Any award of damages or compensation the RIAA might potentially recover if they did win is nothing more than speculation . No one can say with any degree or accuracy how many cd's or songs have been copies or how much potential revenue was lost or indeed if those people that had copied music and movies would have bought anything anyway.

The bottom line is the RIAA has a ton of lawyers and millions of dollars it can rely on to back up its tactics of extortion and hopes to scare people away from file sharing.

Well, my reply is kiss my fucking ass, RIAA . We will bury you.

[Etnies]

Just a question Ive been wondering for a while, if the RIAA hack our computers and sue us, are we then able to sue our firewall company for not doing there job and protecting our computers against hackers?

[TipYourBartender]

I can't wait till the day they end up suing some poor 9 year old kid for millions of dollars. That's gonna look REAL good on World News Tonight. Or some kid who has some incurable disease and needs to pay doctor's bills instead of legal fees. Imagine the headline: "RIAA attempts to extort little kids".

It can - and will - happen. They are going to make asses of themselves somehow, and then they will calm down with the lawsuits.

In the meanwhile Cary Sherman can eat my meat missile.

[Mitsugi]

Originally posted by Etnies
Just a question Ive been wondering for a while, if the RIAA hack our computers and sue us, are we then able to sue our firewall company for not doing there job and protecting our computers against hackers?
I don't think you can sue your firewall company because it's up to you on how to set up the firewall. if you set it up incorrectly, then it's your own fault. The RIAA hires people to search p2p and collect the ips of people that's sharing their copyrighted files, since p2p is open to everyone, blocking a few ips won't stop these companies from obtaining new IPs to do the job.

[Etnies]

Thanks Mitsugi for clearing that up

[Muffin_Man]

Originally posted by Etnies
Just a question Ive been wondering for a while, if the RIAA hack our computers and sue us, are we then able to sue our firewall company for not doing there job and protecting our computers against hackers?


they dont hack the computers, and it isnt a firewall issue. when you use a program such as kazaa, everything you share is put into a shared folder, which is then made available to anyone on the network who wishes to view it. the firewall you use is doing its job, its you who allows these connections.

saying that the riaa is 'hacking' you is like saying the cops did an illegal search when they noticed a few dozen marijuana plants growing in your front yard. if you leave it out in the open, its fair game.

[Gib]

TipYourBartender- how could they possibly sue a kid?

Come on man, they are going to sue the person whos name is on the ISP contract, which wouldn't be some 11 year old kid. it would be his father/mother/guardian whatever.

It will be sad to see an un-knowing parent getting a law suit becuase of their childs doing.

[Induna]

It still makes a sad, sob story which generates bad publicity for the RIAA. Which is the point he was making.

Computer illiterate parents forced to sell home for child's p2p misadventure.

[NDGAARONDI]

If a firewall is defective and results that any decent firewall software would have covered, then you can sue. They owe a duty of care surely? What about manufacturers/programmers liability?

You can sue a teacher if they teach you crap or incorrect material.

BTW I'm speaking on behalf of what it may be like in my country, which isn't USA though. But it could be similar :)

[UBERVIEW]

I suspect the RIAA could only sue you for actual damages which would be difficult to estimate. How many songs were downloaded from your site?

The real deterrent may be in their forcing the justice department to impose penalties for sharing copyrighted material. This would require the government to sue you, not them, I think. I am not a lawyer. I suspect they would present their evidence to the JD and ask John Ashcroft to file charges. It is a tense period for everybody.

[isus]

for the same reason somebody can drag you in front of judge judy and sue for hundreds more than what the problem is really worth:

emotional distress and all that other bs.

except for the riaa, it's 'damages to the artist'.

if you want that translated in english:
we need more padding for hilary rosen's bra.

[NDGAARONDI]

I always thought detection was the deterrent. :fire

[Lucian]

when you download a song from p2p you are stealling billions of imaginary RIAA dollars.

This is why they sue you for a hundred billion dollars instead of a few bucks. I bet their lawyers cost millions of dollars.

[sandoze]

question is.. are the artists, whom they are doing this for, going to see any of the 'profits' made from these lawsuits.

also, you're questioning whether or not the riaa will win these suits.. problem is, everyone brought up on p2p or sharing file charges have settled out of court.. and chances are if you took it to court they're going to threaten to take you for a financial ride.

but, if everyone they sued decided to take it to court, it *would* cost the riaa a lot of money, perhaps even if they won.. but they wouldnt win them all.. we're talking technophobe justices, and older gentlemen and juries that may have no clue what peer to peer is.. an mp3.. port scanning.. going all the way to court also clogs the justice system.. it's a strong tactic protesters use when arrested, take it all they way to the justice system.

has anyone thought of technical defenses? did they listen to the files they downloaded? if the whole song is not there then it's not a copyright issue.. or if the mp3 is unplayable. of course that proof may come down to search and siezure..

[at.morris]

After you Sandoze! We are right behind you...

[NDGAARONDI]

Well many of the justices might not know what we talk about. But their children might lol

.....and about 10 years time may be we'll have judges who specialise in IP/Computer law, and then may be they will know what we are talking about hehe