Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL
 ·Comcast
·WOW Internet and C..
2 edits | reply to BigMac777
Re: Dumb Jury
said by BigMac777  :The court will throw out this outrageous fine from some very ingnorant people that sat on this jury. Even the jury was to stupid to know constitutional law and the award they give to the crooked RIAA . Unfortunately, the same description seems to apply to you as well. Read the judge's instructions and read the statute. The jury were within their rights to award what they did. If the judgement is eventually deemed unconstitutional, then there will have to be a change to the copyright statute. The court nor the jury overstepped any boundaries. |
|
abc123abcjkl
@mindspring.com
| said by Goober :said by BigMac777 :The court will throw out this outrageous fine from some very ingnorant people that sat on this jury. Even the jury was to stupid to know constitutional law and the award they give to the crooked RIAA . Unfortunately, the same desciption seems to apply to you as well. Read the judge's instructions and read the statute. The jury were within their rights to award what they did. If the judgement is eventually deemed unconstitutional, then there will have to be a change to the copyright statute. The court nor the jury overstepped any boundaries. Is this the same judge who sued a dry cleaner for $65 millions for losing his pant? This is within his rights to sue as well. |
|
PapaMidnight
join:2009-01-13
Baltimore, MD
| reply to Goober
said by Goober :said by BigMac777 :The court will throw out this outrageous fine from some very ingnorant people that sat on this jury. Even the jury was to stupid to know constitutional law and the award they give to the crooked RIAA . Unfortunately, the same desciption seems to apply to you as well. Read the judge's instructions and read the statute. The jury were within their rights to award what they did. If the judgement is eventually deemed unconstitutional, then there will have to be a change to the copyright statute. The court nor the jury overstepped any boundaries. Indeed. If her appeal is accepted, expect all eyes to be on this case because it would have extreme ramifications for all civil court cases and judgments made within them, both past, present, and future - that is, if retroactivity comes into play. If she wins, it could open the flood gates for a whole new set of appeals to occur, not that that is a bad thing. Reform of the judicial system is definitely needed. Of course, if she wins, expect an immediate appeal to a higher court. |
|
Goober
Premium
join:2000-12-17
Naperville, IL | I'm looking forward to this. I think the penalty was severe as well and I'd like to see some carve outs in the statute.
For now, though, the law is the law. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
USA
| reply to Goober
Yes. Unfortunately, they didn't even award the RIAA the maximum fine. That would be $150,000 per song or (for the 24 songs Thomas was charged for) $3.6 million. Of course, the smallest amount is $750 which would have come to $18,000.
Still, I think an appropriate fine level would be 10 times the market value of the song. Digital downloads cost, on average, 99 cents each. So Thomas' 24 songs would cost her $9.90 each, or $237.60. I'm not going to hold my breath that copyright law will see more rational fines, though.
--
-Jason Levine
Support a children's charity. Buy a calendar and/or a photo book. Shooting For A Cause |
|
