150,000 per song. Where'd that come from?

[JungaHungry]

I was just doing some thinking (Yep, it does happen), and I was wondering how the RIAA can charge $150,000 per song. Anyone know the math on that one?

Some thoughts: Take into account that filesharing music is basically P2P internet radio. They both do the exact same thing, if you think about it. Now, with that statment, wouldn't the internet radio charges per song apply? I don't know the exact number, but I don't think it is $150,000 per song. Can anyone answer/expand on this?

[Sephiroth]

A bunch of guys sit in a room and figure it out. That is how it is done.

[aqlo]

Yeah, shouldn't a person be liable only for their actual traffic? If your ISP can confirm it for them, couldn't they give you all kinds of detailed listing to work with!

Especially since you are doing them a favor.

[Kooperman]

Secret photos from RIAA meeting where monetary penalties per song were decided:

[tMoD]

It comes from the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA).

[jonnymnemonic]

The amount can vary so widely because it allows for punitive damages, to discourage others from repeating the same behavior. This allows juries have a large range to work with when deciding an appropriate punitive damage amount. Punitive damages are often much higher than actual damages. For example, someone sues the tobacco sompanies and shows that their medical bills were $250,000, the jury will figure that in of course, then slap the tobacco companies with $50 million or $1 billion or whatever in punitive damages, to discourage them from whatever bad begavior they may have been found guilty of.

[HyperspaceSamurai]

I felt that the absurd amounts worked against them. If the argument is that file sharing is equivalent to shoplifting then so should the punishment. Imagine a kid getting busted with a CD under his/her shirt and getting charged these fees per song and then going to his house and saying every CD he has was stolen. Worse yet then they’ll dust for fingerprints and hunt down any finger prints on the CD’s (even copies)because they don’t know who took it from the store but only that it wasn't paid for, then rise and repeat. Maybe the metaphor is not perfect but I hope it traces out the lack of consistency between file swapping and jacking a CD from a store.

[jonnymnemonic]

Maybe they value your time SO HIGHLY that if you go thru the trouble of actually moving away from your computer to rip em off, then they let you off easy. ;)

[Theinfamousone]

Yeah, why don't they sue you for shoplifting? And why don't they slap on an extra $150,000 per song just for good measure so they won't do it again? It's the same thing.

They should only be able to sue you for like $1 a song. That's how much it costs at the iTunes store.

[HyperspaceSamurai]

Originally posted by jonnymnemonic
Maybe they value your time SO HIGHLY that if you go thru the trouble of actually moving away from your computer to rip em off, then they let you off easy. ;)

LOL!

That was funny!

True, there punishing sloth as well. If that is the case I plead no contest. Any man that willingly wore the same pants two days in a row to work because it takes to long to take everything out and put in another should be punished for sloth. I am so ashamed......

[Redneck4sure]

What amount would you expect them to sue you for? Their true loss? That would never work since they would owe you money for promoting their product. If you can't sell the crap then you just extort money from your 12 yr old customers living in public housing.