Howdy,

I wont go into ALL the details BUT, the RIAA got a big win over a 32 year old mother of 4 in Minnesota to the "tune" of 1.9 million US dollars.
The number of songs she downloaded and shared: 32

I have been waiting to see what the "media" outlets had to say about this and they all came to the same conclusion, they wont see a dime unless she settles to pay a lesser amount.

The media also makes the correct assumption that the award is far to excessive and that US laws will now change.

while those things are likely, I have been wondering what the "true" fallout from this whole trial will be.

Apparently the RIAA and the morons who wrote the DMCA have not learned from the past.

They thought they won when they killed Napster and they were wrong.
They might think they have sent another message with this victory but they havent. Well actually they did.

What they have unwittingly shown to all the world is that they will win a "civil" lawsuit for big money. Collecting that amount of money is not reality.
They thought they could scare the world again but they didnt.
It's a ridiculous amount of money and most people will think what the woman from Minnesota said, they wont get anything, I dont have anything.
(or words to that effect).

What person who has a spare 1.9 mil would even bother with downloading music? 1.9 could stock a quite a music library. And I bet Itunes would give you a deal if you wanted to drop that amount of coin on music.

What person who has just enough money to pay the rent and bills will worry about losing a 1.9 mil lawsuit in a "civil" action?

"They" created a monster and it is still out of control. 1.9 is not going to slow it down one bit.

Once fully encrypted file sharing networks become rampant, then what?
Spend 5 mil to win 2 mil?
On that note, I wonder how much they spent to win this lawsuit?

Woodmann

The 1.9mil probably includes lawyer fees and court costs.

I doubt the actual damages awarded could have been more than $5...


[old man]

Have you heard the cr@p they are passing of as "music" these days?

[/old man]

Absolutely interesting wonderings. I think that on the long run the european approach will pay more than this. I think that they are indeed now prisoners of their own actions and do not have a real opportunity of escaping from the lawsuits they created without denying all their previous "actions"..

Part of the problem in the U.S. case is the "law" itself.

If there is a finding the Defendant "committed willful violation" of copyrights, then the Statute provides that the "jury" in it's sole discretion, may award damages in any range within the provisions of the Copyright Statute. That Statute provides for penalties as small as $750 and as high as $150,000 per copyright violation.

It is completely up to the "jury," with no guidance from the court on limitation on damages, other than those specifically provided by the statute , to chose the range of damages awarded for each violation. The Copyright holder is NOT required to show ANY "actual damages" or the "amount of damage" for the infringment and there need be no direct connection between the "violation" and the damages awarded.

It is purely intended to be a punative award to attempt to deter "willful violations."

Regards,

Sadly, it's bound to get worse before it gets better though:

http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/04/22/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry4960832.shtml

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2009/04/biden-to-mpaa-youll-like-obamas-copyright-pick.ars