"As the RIAA's legal battle against suspected file-sharers has unfolded, one of the arguments put forth by some defendants is that the statutory damages sought by the RIAA are unconstitutionally excessive. That's one of the defenses articulated by Ray Beckerman, attorney for the defendant in UMG v. Lindor. In a ruling issued yesterday, Judge Robert M. Levy ordered the record labels to provide Marie Lindor with the expenses incurred for each of the 38 songs at issue in the case, writing that Lindor's request may "lead to the discovery of admissible evidence.""
"The request by Lindor seems innocuous enough. "(A) Set forth all expenses incurred by plaintiffs, per authorized song file download, in connection with the thirty eight (38) songs..., and (B) annex copies of all documents kept in the ordinary course of business of plaintiffs sufficient to support said statement of expenses."
In a court filing last month, the RIAA argued that Lindor's request was unclear and that she already had information sufficient to make a defense that the statutory damages sought by the labels ($750-150,000) are unconstitutional. Most tellingly, the RIAA also says that "they do not have the analysis requested" and could not perform it without "enormous expense" requiring "lengthy and complex analysis."
In Capitol v. Thomas, the only file-sharing case to go to trial so far, Sony BMG head of litigation Jennifer Pariser testified that she had no idea about the extent of the actual damages suffered by the recording industry. "We haven't stopped to calculate the amount of damages we've suffered due to downloading, but that's not what's at issue here," she told Jammie Thomas' attorney during cross-examination."
For more, visit the source.
Source: ars technica