RIAA Backs Off Dead Man's Family > i wait

reply to hayabusa3303

Re: i wait

I was just thinking of Hogan also, but couldn't remember his name. Unfortunately, he's the rare exception. Most people sued by the RIAA get notified that they are being sued for millions of dollars in potential damages. The RIAA then tells them that they have two options 1) spend a lot of time and money fighting a lengthy court case that they could lose and wind up bankrupt for years to come 2) sign this easy little piece of paper to make it all go away for the low, low price of only $2,000-$3,000. They are highly pressured to just settle on the spot (lest the price go up should they tarry). For most people, the prospect of fighting a long, drawn out court battle is too much regardless of their guilt or innocence.

I've said it multiple times. If I was sued, I might wind up settling even if I was innocent (which I would be). Ideally, I would want to fight to clear my good name, but in the end I have too much in my life that I could lose in a long, drawn out court battle. So I would most likely settle, but would feel awful while doing so. (Of course, there's the chance that the RIAA would just drop the case if I pursued it, but I'm not sure I'd be willing to spend the time and money to take that chance.)

I agree that these threats with court action amount to nothing more than a war of attrition.

IMO, if {insert multimillion entity here} wants to sue someone on a civil matter they should only be able to spend up to 10% of the defendant's net income on legal counsel (this is probably the maximum an average working person can spare). E.G. the single soccer mom who takes home $30,000 a year - sorry RIAA, you can only spend up to $3000 on legal counsel. Better take it up in small claims!
--
"When they call the roll in the Senate, the Senators do not know whether to answer 'Present' or 'Not guilty.'" --
Theodore Roosevelt

That might be a good idea. My idea would amount to creating two classes of copyright infringement. Let's call these "casual" and "professional." The Professional infringer would be someone who was infringing on copyrights for profit. An example would be those folks who burn copies of CDs and DVDs and sell them on the street corners. These folks would face the full fines currently available ($750 - $150,000 per infringing incident).

The second class would be the casual infringer. This would be the person who infringed copyright but had no profit motive. An example would be someone uploading a song to a P2P network without getting the copyright holder's permission. This offense would carry a much reduced fine from the "professional" level. Let's say about $0.75 - $150 per infringing incident, but with a cap of $10,000. This would make truly innocent much more likely to fight when presented with the RIAA's "take the $3,000 settlement or else" threat.

I know this is a little off topic but...

actually read the fbi warning before a movie some time, for non profit use you face up tp 5 years in jail and a 250,000 fine!

I know and I find that a bit excessive. If someone makes a copy of a movie and gives it to his friend he could (theoretically) be bankrupted and sent to prison for 5 years! Is one movie swap worth that much? That might be a good fine for the professional pirates, but somewhere along the way we lost all perspective when it came to normal citizens.