Your Ad Here Your Ad Here
Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Judge tells record labels to cough up download expenses

  1. #1
    Hairbautt's Avatar *haircut
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Florida
    Age
    20
    Posts
    11,028
    "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
    _________________________________________________________________________________________
    Last edited by Alien5; Jun 6th, 2006 at
    06:36 PM..

  2. News (Archive)   -   #2
    Ænima's Avatar 2 in 1 BT Rep: +1
    Join Date
    Oct 2007
    Posts
    153
    but the RIAA needs to exorbitantly extort all the money out of one filesharer for the thousands of other filesharers who don't get caught!

    to think our american judges even allow this tomfoolery in their courtrooms..

  3. News (Archive)   -   #3
    kooftspc11's Avatar WWW.STFU.LOL BT Rep: +9BT Rep +9
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    1,280
    i love filesharing and i love seeing the giant corporate douchebags getting f'd in the ass. ever since the sony rootkit scandal ive developed a strong dislike for these money hungry fucks. to top it off i see people who actually PAY for music downloads getting screwed too because of DRM.

  4. News (Archive)   -   #4
    Aaxel21's Avatar AHHHHH!
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    Texas
    Age
    33
    Posts
    981
    Quote Originally Posted by Hairbautt View Post
    "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.""
    But the judge is not looking at the big picture. The music industrie is not worried about what they actual amount of money they lost for the song being downloaded. Which, correct me if I'm wrong, is $ .99. They also need to be reimbursed for legal expenses, because you can't bent all the copyright laws in your favor every time with a cheap lawyer. No, you have to get someone like Johnny Cochran, or someone just as expensive. And with that kind of high priced lawyer the record indrustrie doesn't have to settle for all the money it is out, which in this case is $38. Go for all you can get because that what greedy companies do.

    Quote Originally Posted by Hairbautt View Post
    "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."
    Honestly, all this for $38. You know I have some grass that needs to be cut in the backyard if theses people have nothing else better to do.


    Quote Originally Posted by Hairbautt View Post
    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."
    That's correct. The issue here is about the money.
    Remember bullets always have the right of way.

  5. News (Archive)   -   #5
    Poster BT Rep: +1
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    49
    Haha, if that judge makes them figure out the actual losses, it'll probably end up being $38 or something ridiculous. And if that sticks that'll be precendent so that the RIAA can only sue for $1/song from now on.
    Which would be great since they'd stop doing these moronic lawsuits.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •