Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Defendant Says Kazaa Settlement Bars Case
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The defendant in Arista v. Greubel has filed an answering statement. The statement says that the RIAA's case against him, since it's based upon his use of Kazaa, is barred by the RIAA's receipt of $115 million from Kazaa. Mr. Greubel also challenged the constitutionality of the RIAA's $750-per-song damages theory, saying damages should be limited to $2.80 per song. See the previous Slashdot discussion of that issue and Judge Trager's decision in UMG v. Lindor."
There is no way for a person to win against the machine.
Especially with that attitude...
One point: computer geeks and programmers need to get used to the "feces flinging" technique of the lawyers. Write a program with multiple logically inconsistent statements and it will collapse in a screaming heap. Doing that is anathema to most programmers. But when mounting a legal defence (or attack), you're allowed make logically incompatible statements. You just keep flinging feces until something sticks. The fact you're arguing the case should be dismisseddoesn't stop you arguing that the damages awarded should be reduced 100x - EVEN THOUGH it's nonsense to talk of damages because you're arguing the case should be dismissed. Many computer geeks just don't get that. You're not programming a consistent logical system, you're feces-flinging. Remember that, and you can start to win much more often against the lawyer/CxO scum.
"On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered" (from the linked article, statement by Judge Trager)
This to me implies that they don't neccesarily have to stick to the minimum, if they can show that the minimum is ridiculous.
Also - I think it isn't quite fair to say that if you uploaded 1 song to 50 people, and those 50 people upload it to 50 people, that you are responsible for all of those damages. Who is to say that they don't go after the 50 people you uploaded it to, and the 50 people they uploaded it to? If they did in fact, then they would be getting damages way in excess of the money they actually lost. Realistically, I think the defendant should only be responsible for damages *directly* caused by them - that is, their initial downloading of the song and their uploading it to others, if those others go onto share it yet again, they should pay the price, not the original seeder.