 MidakDoctors suckPremium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY | reply to Pirate515
Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice They may have a huge bankroll but the reason for that is they dont spend it where they dont ned to. If I told you I could get 5k each from 100 suits while only spending 150 in court costs and 25% to my attorney and do this fast, why waste the time and money on the ones where I will spend 5k in attorney fees due to them charging me hourly for their defense of the counter claim? Sure, I could defend the counterclaim, bury the poor sap I am suing and get a judgment for $150k but now I have to try to collect it. Now, instead of just making up for the $150 investment, I have to also make up for the $5k in attorney fees so even if I do a wage garnishment, the first $5150 is just getting back what I invested. No, the quick money for the win every time. Poor people make poor payers, the more affluent can afford to defend the claims. That said, if you have no real estate, file your answer and counter claim pro-se claiming harrassment and lack of evidence. Also be sure to include the plaintiffs attorney in your counter claim to really grab their attention. |
|
| They (the RIAA) might not fight the case and just drop it. Or they might decide to make an example of you. Would you be willing to risk the time, energy, and money to fight the case (even if you were innocent)? I'm not too sure I would. The $3,000 settlement would be a lot of money, but it would mean that it would all go away quickly rather than dragging on. It's sad, but true. And that's the main reason why I think that the penalties need to be changed.
If the fines faced were only $3,000 or so, then I'd bet that the RIAA would be suing a lot less people (based on better information) and the innocent people would be more likely to fight the charges. |
|
MidakDoctors suckPremium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY | said by Jason Levine:They (the RIAA) might not fight the case and just drop it. Or they might decide to make an example of you. Would you be willing to risk the time, energy, and money to fight the case (even if you were innocent)? Yes I would. I have been to court more times that I can count and nothing sucks more than to go to court against a pro-se defendant that has a clue what he/she is doing because the judge is always biased in favor of the pro-se defendant who sounds even somewhat credible vs. the big corp with too much money to throw around. |
|
| said by Midak:Yes I would. I have been to court more times that I can count and nothing sucks more than to go to court against a pro-se defendant that has a clue what he/she is doing because the judge is always biased in favor of the pro-se defendant who sounds even somewhat credible vs. the big corp with too much money to throw around. I would applaud you then for going to court to fight to clear your good name. Unfortunately, you are in the minority. Most people wouldn't know what they are doing if they went to court.
To the average Joe, a multimillion dollar lawsuit against them coming out of the blue is a very scary thing. They don't know which way to turn or what to do. Their whole life could be ruined. And then the offer comes in from the RIAA's Settlement Center to forget the whole thing for a "mere" $3,000. Sure, it's still a lot of money, but it is less than the millions they could wind up owing and it saves them the time, expense, and stress of an actual lawsuit. So they take the settlement. |
|
|
|
MidakDoctors suckPremium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY | Agreed. In my business, this is what we hope for. Judgments mean nothing without the cash being paid. Any plaintiff that does this often enough knows it's a gamble going to court, regardless of how strong you feel your case is. |
|
