Ahhh yes... the "let's make an example of" method of punishment. It's worked so well over the years it's a wonder anyone breaks the rules anymore. Wait... it doesn't work at all and all that really happen's is someones life gets ruined and lawyers pockets get lined with money.
This should have been a "don't do this again" with a $1000 fine and Mrs. Thomas-Rasset would have learned her lesson just the same.
No what do we do, we waste the courts time/money for many years now when just like others posted... Mrs. Thomas-Rasset will claim bankrupt and move on with her life likely never paying a dime of this and in 7 year be back to normal.
The record companies should have to prove they suffered Financial hardship due to these losses. They should be forced to hand over all financial documents and personal fiances as well to show proof of lossed income and way of life.
Since Hollywood uses the analogy "One download equals one lost sale" they should have to prove that their was ever intent to buy with if there was no option to download.
I am all for allowing people to make money but when an Industry which has gold plated everything preys upon an average person with no money that's disgusting. the RIAA and MPAA have more money then they need and should be happy people are Enjoying their works even after their investment has been paid back any money made after the investment being paid back is considered excessive profit lol
CXM_SplicerLooking at the bigger picturePremium
|reply to axiomatic |
Agreed. Of course there is a simple way to fight fire with fire that would send an extremely powerful message from the community... a Thomas-Rasset fund. $220k would probably be fairly easy to collect considering the circumstances and all the publicity. Hell, I would chip in $20 right now. I am sure torrent sites would chip in too, independent labels, anyone that wants to send a big FU to the RIAA/MPAA. I would hate the fact that they would get the money but the message that it sends and this lady getting her life back is worth it. Only problem is she would most likely have to pay federal income tax on the 'gift'.
|reply to axiomatic |
Personally I think they should get rid of the statutory damages unless you're selling / counterfeiting the goods as a business.
Otherwise, like anything else, the RIAA etc should have to prove actual damages, and if shown to be willful the normal 3x damages or "going rate" for the songs at major retailers.
I.e. average of iTunes / Amazon price for the songs, x3 if they can show willful infringement. That's actual damages plus reasonable punishment for willfully breaking the law.
It's absurd how far removed this is from any other civil damages awards.--
Opera 11.1; Windows XP Pro SP3;Intel C2Q6600; 3GB DDR2 1066; 1M/128k DSL; Comodo Internet Security 5.3;Proxomitron 4.5j Sidki 2009-06-06,GPG ID:0x0A1C6EE3