aaron83_01
I can't get myself to go away.
join:2005-01-03
Clarkston, WA
 ·CableOne
edit:
November 6th, @11:51AM
| reply to Nightfall
Re: Bad Article, Poor Advice
Your statement clarified my point exactly, Nightfall. A $10k suit for sharing 10 songs is nothing more than a scare tactic, because the **AA can't honestly think that even if they do win a suit against Average P2P User, that Mr. User will ever be able to come up with the $10k. They throw a large $$ lawsuit at Mr. User hoping it will scare him into settling for MUCH less, KNOWING full well he could NEVER pay $10k.
Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money.
Edit: I do agree with your theory of a reasonable dollar amount put on these things, however. That is my theory behind why people choose P2P over legal download services: you don't get a reasonable product for your $. If download services were REASONABLE, people would P2P much less, and PURCHASE much more.
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| said by aaron83_01  :Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money. They might not, but you would be forced into bankruptcy, might have to sell off a lot of your possessions, might lose your house (if you have one), and would suffer with bad credit for awhile. All because the RIAA said you had shared a dozen songs on a P2P network. |
|
Nightfall
My Goal Is To Deny Yours
Premium,MVM
join:2001-08-03
Grand Rapids, MI
clubs:
 ·AT&T Midwest
·Comcast
 ·Site5.com
| reply to aaron83_01
said by aaron83_01 :Your statement clarified my point exactly, Nightfall. A $10k suit for sharing 10 songs is nothing more than a scare tactic, because the **AA can't honestly think that even if they do win a suit against Average P2P User, that Mr. User will ever be able to come up with the $10k. They throw a large $$ lawsuit at Mr. User hoping it will scare him into settling for MUCH less, KNOWING full well he could NEVER pay $10k. Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money. Edit: I do agree with your theory of a reasonable dollar amount put on these things, however. That is my theory behind why people choose P2P over legal download services: you don't get a reasonable product for your $. If download services were REASONABLE, people would P2P much less, and PURCHASE much more. I agree, the **AA shot themselves in the foot on the download services being reasonable. Imagine how successful they would have been if they launched an allofmp3 like system? If they would have added more features to the CD to make it more price friendly, it would have been a win/win. As it is, they didn't do that so these things exist.
No matter what the price of these things will be, there will always be people who will use P2P to get them or share them. Imagine if software makers dropped the price across the board by 50% if you downloaded instead of bought in the stores. The stores could drop their price by 25% for those who wanted the hard copy. There would still be people who pirate. Same goes for music and movies. Even music as cheap as allofmp3 would get distributed illegally. People will do anything to save a buck, including pirate.
These people must be punished at some level. If someone is so cheap to not pay .25 cents a song, they should be hit with a $10 per song shared bill. People who fight it in court better be expected to pay court costs if they lose. Nothing is anonymous on the internet, so people who are dumb enough to get caught sharing should get nailed. I am glad we agree on the cost being inflated at least.
In short, there has to be a way to protect the intellectual property of others. I am a published writer and photographer, and I have caught other websites and news organizations using my work without my permission and without paying me. These people, when confronted, paid up because they knew they were in the wrong and I didn't put a outlandish $3000 per article or picture on it either. Its amazing how, when the price is reasonable, there is no arguement if one party knows they were in the wrong.
Glad we at least agreed on some things. 
--
My Domain
Nightfall's Hockey and Life Journal |
|
aaron83_01
I can't get myself to go away.
join:2005-01-03
Clarkston, WA | reply to Jason Levine
The only thing I own is a Ford Explorer. I already have bad credit. Not much else they could do.
--
"I invented it, Bill made it famous." --David Bradley, the inventor of Ctrl+Alt+Del. |
|
Grail Knight
Who Dares Wins
Premium
join:2003-05-31
Erie, PA | Pay the fine at $5 bucks a month in pennies.
Restitution can be very slow. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| reply to Nightfall
said by Nightfall :I agree, the **AA shot themselves in the foot on the download services being reasonable. Imagine how successful they would have been if they launched an allofmp3 like system? If they would have added more features to the CD to make it more price friendly, it would have been a win/win. As it is, they didn't do that so these things exist. Back during the heyday of Napster, I thought the recording industry should team up with Napster and build an online music store. The idea would be to limit the bitrate of the "free, shared" music. Say 96kbps tops. Then they would sell higher bitrate (and more reliably produced) versions for differing prices. The higher the bitrate, the more it would cost. (Of course, all of the songs would be reasonably priced. It would just cost more for more quality.)
They could have thought of the free, low bitrate songs like radio copies. Free publicity. Sure, some people wouldn't buy the higher bitrate copies, but some people are content to listen to music on the radio and never buy the CDs. Many more people would be likely to hear the low quality version and decide to buy a higher quality version to keep.
Instead, they decided to stomp Napster out of existence and in doing so provided the climate for the P2P apps to develop. Finally, after many years of fighting music online, they finally figured that they could benefit from online music, but even now they seem to regard online music as a bastard child. Something that should be dealt with with a wary eye and kept as hidden away as possible lest some embarrassing questions be asked. |
|
aaron83_01
I can't get myself to go away.
join:2005-01-03
Clarkston, WA | reply to Grail Knight
YES! |
|
hayabusa3303
Over 200 mph
Premium
join:2005-06-29
clubs: | Better yet give them just a dollar a month.  |
|
lesopp
join:2001-06-27
Land O Lakes, FL | A dollar a month sounds good, but wipe with it first, or let it soak in the litter box over night, just to pass along your new found respect for them... |
|
Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
edit:
November 6th, @02:53PM
|  reply to aaron83_01
said by aaron83_01 :Hell, they could sue me for $1,000,000,000 if they wanted to, and I'd LET them win for the fun of it, 'cause I know they'd never see a penny of the money. You obviously don't know how our legal system works. If a court orders you to pay a certain amount to someone and you are unable to do so willingly, the courts have the authority to find and dip into your bank accounts, confiscate your property and garnish your wages and other official income.
So suppose that you do lose $1 billion to RIAA. While most likely you'll never be able to pay them back in full, you'll be constantly "sharing" a part of what you make with them for the rest of your life. There are, of course, ways around it. You can flee the country, but you'd have to move to a third-world one because in a civilized one you will eventually be caught and extradited back to the US. You can move your money off-shore to a country that doesn't cooperate with the US. Or you can work off the books, but you won't make much and risk going down for tax evasion.
The purpose of these ridiculous fines it to scare the sh*t out of people. RIAA/MPAA are showing that they are big and powerful, but most of all capable of destroying people's lives and are more than willing to do so when they catch someone who messes with them.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill...
|
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Jason Levine
Then you don't know much about Bankruptcy.. The scenerio you just described would not happen. Not to mention, a judge allowing a million dollar judgement would be doing it so, and as a favor to the defendant so that it would never be collected on. (Satisfies both parties.. the plaintiff gets their judgement, worthless as it is, and the defendant would not have to pay it.. no court would allow for insolvantcy for a case like this with an amount way beyond the means of the defendant)
By the way.. getting a judgement and actually enforcing them are two different things.
Once the judgement is obtained, they have to do a discovery of your ability to pay and assets. When they find out that there are no assets, there is a very slim chance they would ever collect or persue.
The legal system is not as cut and dry as some people like to believe it is.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. |
|
fiberguy
My views are my own.
Premium
join:2005-05-20
| reply to Pirate515
You are KIND OF right.. (Many of the laywers I have as clients deal in this very practice).. I posted more on it above in another message.
When discovery is done, they figure you don't have the ability to pay, their judgment would most likely be stayed or reduced and that would be the end of it. The initial judgement would be on record but what ultimately happens in the end is different.
"CAN" they do what you said? Sure.. would/do they? In VERY rare occasions.. to this day, the punishment is still based on the situation.
--
"Wipe out the national deficit over night... Tax the stupid!" - about 50 gMail invites available. PM if you'd like one. |
|
russotto
join:2000-10-05
Collegeville, PA
| reply to fiberguy
The legal system is fine if you're rich and have the money to use it. And it's fine if you're poor and they can't collect. However, if you're somewhere in the middle, you can't effectively defend yourself and they'll take everything and garnishee you into slavery for the rest of your life (now that you can't get a Chap 7 bankruptcy as long as you have income). |
|
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
·Optimum Online
 ·Verizon FIOS
| reply to fiberguy
Wow, your pretty close to being wrong. What pirate515 is true of any company that is looking to collect on any large number of judgments. You always look to hit the bank accounts and garnish wages. You also look to lien and possibly force a sale on any real estate. If they do not have any of the above, the judgment is never reduced or stayed as you have put it. Also, keep in mind that all states are different but I can tell you we sue in yours quite often and collect monthly from wage garnishments, bank attachments and sometimes property sales. Discovery is only a required process in a few states. KY, for example, requires no discovery post judgment and no notification aside from the judgment itself before a wage garnishment begins.
My suggestion to anyone being sued is deny all allegations, under no circumstances let them win by not showing up for court and always make them prove their case to the fullest. Also, as a matter of good measure and to force the other side to incur more legal costs, file an answer AND counter claim. Most attorneys who earn their keep through a contingency basis start charging hourly fees to their client once a counter claim has been established. This is quite often the deciding factor as to whether the plaintiff wants to continue the suit or not. |
|
birdfeedr
Premium
join:2001-08-11
Warwick, RI
·Verizon FIOS
| reply to Pirate515
Oh, so is that what happened to OJ Simpson?
"I gave all my money to my lawyers, so I don't have any left to pay off the families of those I didn't murder (no matter what the jury said). I have some income but it's just enough to keep me for food, rent and greens fees." |
|
Pirate515
Premium
join:2001-01-22
Brooklyn, NY
| reply to Midak
said by Midak :My suggestion to anyone being sued is deny all allegations, under no circumstances let them win by not showing up for court and always make them prove their case to the fullest. Also, as a matter of good measure and to force the other side to incur more legal costs, file an answer AND counter claim. Most attorneys who earn their keep through a contingency basis start charging hourly fees to their client once a counter claim has been established. This is quite often the deciding factor as to whether the plaintiff wants to continue the suit or not. Great suggestion, but when taking on an organization with huge amount of money in the bank such as RIAA, does it really pay to drag the thing on? You are forgetting that the defendant's lawyer(s) also charge by the hour, and when individual Joe Schmoe takes on the RIAA, he will run out of money way much faster than RIAA will. That is why the majority of those who get sued choose to settle, as they are presented with 2 choices: pay RIAA $5,000-10,000 to make this go away or spend several times more defending themselves with no guarantee of winning, and if they do lose, you could owe up to $150,000 per song.
Of course, there are people out there with enough money to drag the lawsuits on for as long as it takes, but something tells me that RIAA doesn't pick on them. They are too afraid to tackle someone of their own size, they'd rather prey on small and weak.
--
Ask me no questions, and I'll tell you no lies...
A MESSAGE to the RIAA and the MPAA: You shouldn't wound what you can't kill... |
|
Midak
Doctors suck
Premium
join:2002-02-26
Yonkers, NY
·Optimum Online
·Verizon FIOS
| 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. |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| reply to fiberguy
Actually, the minimum punishment is $750 per violation. If you have 1,000 violations (like RIAA claims that the people that sue have), then that is $750,000. The courts might work with you as far as payment goes: A lien on your income, sale of real estate that you own, etc. However, they won't reduce the verdict just because you don't have the funds to cut a check right then and there.
Of course, the RIAA might never see most of their hypothetical verdict even at the minimum, but that's not the point. Even if the court did alter the final amount based on what the person could pay, the RIAA would use the potential of huge penalties to scare people into settling. The maximum punishment is $150,000 per song, so the RIAA will claim that your choice is take their $3,000 settlement or face $150,000,000 in fines (plus legal fees and time spent fighting the case). |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| reply to Midak
said by Midak :My suggestion to anyone being sued is deny all allegations, under no circumstances let them win by not showing up for court and always make them prove their case to the fullest. Also, as a matter of good measure and to force the other side to incur more legal costs, file an answer AND counter claim. Most attorneys who earn their keep through a contingency basis start charging hourly fees to their client once a counter claim has been established. This is quite often the deciding factor as to whether the plaintiff wants to continue the suit or not. This is good advice in theory. In practice though, the people being sued have limited time and resources to fight a long, protracted case. Anything that will create a financial hit on the RIAA will bankrupt your average Joe. The RIAA knows this and is counting on people to take the quick and easy settlement rather than fight the charges (even if the person is innocent). |
|
Jason Levine
Premium
join:2001-07-13
Albany, NY
| reply to Midak
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. |
|
