


The RIAA adds a notch to its belt of legal victories


Comments     Threshold


RE: Appeal imminent
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/4/2007 9:59:06 PM , Rating: 2
I concur. Anyone with half a clue will have this appealed and a judge likely to look at 24 songs and laugh at the amount awarded in damages. Trial by Jury is laughable at best. Until they start staffing juries by people who understand the subject matter rather than random fools from society that haven't a clue and are incredibly gullible this will keep happening. Don't worry though I would never make it on a jury panel, I tend to analyze logically and methodically and lawyers don't like that.

RE: Appeal imminent
By ElFenix on 10/4/2007 10:43:18 PM , Rating: 1
if the damages are specified by statute (and they are), as long as the jury was within that range (and it was) there is nothing about the damages that is laughable.

and the defense should have done a better job of educating the jury, if that is your complaint.

but she really had no case, so she couldn't educate the jury. other than claiming she was the victim of some malicious attack (for which she had no proof), what did she have? nothing. nothing + nothing = nothing.

but really insightful post from someone who claims to analyze methodically and logically.

RE: Appeal imminent
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/5/2007 7:40:08 AM , Rating: 2
Ah, go check out that mcdonalds case, the one where that lady spilled the coffee on her lap? After several appeals she went from winning 2.9 Million to 640 Thousand. Further appeals resulted in an out of court settlement totaling less than 600 Thousand. So, yes this would not likely hold up in an appeal.

RE: Appeal imminent
By ElFenix on 10/5/2007 1:02:08 PM , Rating: 2
first, it was the trial judge that reduced the damages, not an appeal.

second, the damages reduced were the punitive damages, not the compensatory damages (which were $200,000 - 20% responsiblity of the old woman). the punitives were reduced from several million to 3x the compensatory damages (3x is pretty traditional for punitive damages). so the total became 640 (160 compensatory + 480 punitive).

unless i've completely misread something, these damages were not 'punitive' (though, obviously that is the intent of the statute). these are regular statutory compensatory damages for an act the value of which can be hard to determine.

in other words, the mcdonalds reduction isn't really on point here. so, as a licensed attorney, i am going to respectfully disagree with your reading of the law.

RE: Appeal imminent
By Master Kenobi (blog) on 10/5/2007 7:44:11 AM , Rating: 2

Well, I think her lawyer isn't very good for starters. Given the little information we have on this case and what happened in court, it would appear the RIAA didn't prove anything. They won without proof, everything was speculation. The RIAA lawyers must have made a very convincing argument and this lady must have hung herself in the trial because I can't see how she could lose unless she admitted to information in court. I would have outright denied the whole thing and told them to prove it, but that's just me.

RE: Appeal imminent


RE: Appeal imminent
By masher2 (blog) on 10/5/2007 1:36:21 PM , Rating: 2
> "a judge likely to look at 24 songs and laugh at the amount awarded in damages"

The law specificies a fine of up to $150,000 per item for willful infringement. Given she was charged slightly less than $10,000 per song, she got off a lit lighter than she could have.


Related Articles
The RIAA v. The People: Four Years Later
August 30, 2007, 3:37 PM
