RIAA rejects damages award in file-sharing case, wants more

The RIAA, in a case filed against a 16-year old girl, has rejected the damages awarded it by a judge and taken the case to an expensive jury trial in pursuit of a bigger payout. The judge specified the payout at $200 per shared song, accepting the girl’s claim that at the time, she knew nothing about the illegality of her actions. That’s not enough to get her off the hook–ignorance of the law is not a defense–but it allows a presiding judge to set per-song damages below the $750 minimum.

If nothing else, this finally lays to rest the RIAA’s claim that its “sue everyone” legal strategy is not about money.

RIAA rejects damage award, forces trial, looks hypocritical [Ars Technica]

About Rob Beschizza

Rob Beschizza is the Managing Editor of Boing Boing. He's @beschizza on Twitter and can be found on Facebook too. Try your luck at besc...@gmail.com

 

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to RIAA rejects damages award in file-sharing case, wants more

  1. Skep says:

    “If nothing else, this finally lays to rest the RIAA’s claim that its “sue everyone” legal strategy is not about money.”

    I disagree.

    The the RIAA run’s its sham lawsuit litigation factory (30,000+ and rising) such that it fights every case that comes to court with the full force of a multi-billion dollar corporation, no matter whether the target is a disabled mom with MS, a 16 year old girl, or a dead person. The RIAA always seeks to establish president in its favor, and they don’t want their to be president for anything but the most ruinous of statutory damages, no matter what the mitigating circumstances. In fact, the RIAA routinely drops, or tries to drop, cases where it stands to loose an important president, treating each new case as a potential do over until it gets the judge and a the president it wants–like rolling the dice as many times as you want.

    So, the RIAA doesn’t sue individuals on merit, it sues them for precedent. That’s why that girl’s case is receiving a ridiculous litigation effort by a truly reprehensible corporation, IMO.

  2. Jake0748 says:

    “truly reprehensible corporation, IMO.”

    IMO, also.

  3. Tenn says:

    “truly reprehensible corporation, IMO.”

    this.

  4. SeppTB says:

    I’m interested to see how this plays out. Couldn’t the jury actually award less than $200 per song? I think it’d be hilarious if the jury ended up being very sympathetic to the defendant and awarded damages of 99cents a song. I hope!

  5. michaelportent says:

    “In fact, the RIAA routinely drops, or tries to drop, cases where it stands to loose an important president, treating each new case as a potential do over until it gets the judge and a the president it wants–like rolling the dice as many times as you want.”

    Such a joke. To quote Fight Club, they’re “polishing the brass on the Titanic – it’s all going down”.

    The fact is, while they’re squabbling over petty cases, the major labels they work for will be forced to change their business models to the point where it’s irrelevant.

    People will pay for good music. The big companies just aren’t putting out any, and they aren’t giving it to us in the formats we want.

    Don’t support these slothful, greedy monsters until they change. Support independent music, internet radio, and solid non-DRM download models.

  6. Skep says:

    //I’m interested to see how this plays out. Couldn’t the jury actually award less than $200 per song? I think it’d be hilarious if the jury ended up being very sympathetic to the defendant and awarded damages of 99cents a song. I hope!//

    I don’t know, but even if the jury is allowed to set the award, they are only allowed to hear what the judge lets the lawyers present, so they could still find against the “evil pirate” girl, who is, no doubt, single handedly responsible for all the bad business decisions of the entire record industry.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

More BB

Boing Boing Video

Flickr Pool

Digg

Wikipedia

Advertise

Displays ads via FM Tech

RSS and Email

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution. Boing Boing is a trademark of Happy Mutants LLC in the United States and other countries.

FM Tech