Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Caught in Tough Legal Situation
JeffreysTube writes "The RIAA's legal fight against a divorced mother has run into trouble, with the judge now telling the RIAA that its only two options are to proceed with a jury trial against Patty Santangelo or dismiss the case with prejudice. If the latter happens, Santangelo officially "wins" and could collect attorneys' fees. The judge is less than pleased with the RIAA, which is now trying to drop the case without giving Santangelo a chance to be declared guilty. 'This case is two years old,' wrote Judge McMahon. 'There has been extensive fact discovery. After taking this discovery, either plaintiffs want to make their case that Mrs. Santangelo is guilty of contributory copyright infringement or they do not.'"
JeffreysTube wrote" "The judge is less than pleased with the RIAA, which is now trying to drop the case without giving Santangelo a chance to be declared guilty."
Somehow, I don't think Mrs. Santangelo is in this to be declared guilty. But hey, I'm just a dazed onlooker - what would I know about the law.
But they help us too. For instance, I own a record store, and my business faces ruin. CD sales have dropped through the floor. People aren't buying half as many CDs as they did just a year ago. Revenue is down and costs are up. My store has survived for years, but I now face the prospect of bankruptcy. Every day I ask myself why this is happening.
I bought the store about 12 years ago. It was one of those boutique record stores that sell obscure, independent releases that no-one listens to, not even the people that buy them. I decided that to grow the business I'd need to aim for a different demographic, the family market. My store specialised in family music - stuff that the whole family could listen to. I don't sell sick stuff like Marilyn Manson or cop-killer rap, and I'm proud to have one of the most extensive Christian rock sections that I know of.
The business strategy worked. People flocked to my store, knowing that they (and their children) could safely purchase records without profanity or violent lyrics. Over the years I expanded the business and took on more clean-cut and friendly employees. It took hard work and long hours but I had achieved my dream - owning a profitable business that I had built with my own hands, from the ground up. But now, this dream is turning into a nightmare.
Every day, fewer and fewer customers enter my store to buy fewer and fewer CDs. Why is no one buying CDs? Are people not interested in music? Do people prefer to watch TV, see films, read books? I don't know. But there is one, inescapable truth - Internet piracy is mostly to blame. The statistics speak for themselves - one in three discs world wide is a pirate. On The Internet, you can find and download hundreds of dollars worth of music in just minutes. It has the potential to destroy the music industry, from artists, to record companies to stores like my own. Before you point to the supposed "economic downturn", I'll note that the book store just across from my store is doing great business. Unlike CDs, it's harder to copy books over The Internet.
A week ago, an unpleasant experience with pirates gave me an idea. In my store, I overheard a teenage patron talking to his friend.
"Dude, I'm going to put this CD on the Internet right away."
"Yeah, dude, that's really lete [sic], you'll get lots of respect."
I was fuming. So they were out to destroy the record industry from right under my nose? Fat chance. When they came to the counter to make their purchase, I grabbed the little shit by his shirt. "So...you're going to copy this to your friends over The Internet, punk?" I asked him in my best Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry voice.
"Uh y-yeh." He mumbled, shocked.
"That's it. What's your name? You're blacklisted. Now take yourself and your little bitch friend out of my store - and don't come back." I barked. Cravenly, they complied and scampered off.
So that's my idea - a national blacklist of pirates. If somebody cannot obey the basic rules of society, then they should be excluded from society. If pirates want to steal from the music industry, then the music industry should exclude them. It's that simple. One strike, and you're out - no reputable record store will allow you to buy another CD. If the pirates can't buy the CDS to begin with, then they won't be able to copy them over The Internet, will they? It's no different to doctors blacklisting drug dealers from buying prescription medicine.
I have just written a letter to the RIAA outlining my proposal. Suing pirates one by one isn't going far enough. Not to mention pirates use the fact that they're being sued to unfairly portray themselves as victims. A national register of pirates would make the problem far easier to deal with. People would be encouraged to give the names of suspected pirates to a hotline, similar to TIPS. Once we know the size of the problem, the police and other law enforcement agencies will be forced to take piracy seriously. They have fought the War on Drugs with skill, so why not the
Somehow I think the judge is upset that the defendant may not have the chance to be declared innocent - that is, that the RIAA appear to be trying to walk away from making a baseless claim without the defendant having the opportunity to have his name cleared officially.
Were that to happen, I wonder if there would be any scope in pursuing a claim for defamation? (No, I don't think I would in that position, but it would almost certainly cross my mind...)
It's official. Most of you are morons.
Yeah, be afraid of the RIAA, they must have some secret CIA shit that allows them to know exactly what person was sitting at the computer based upon an IP address.
hehe, can't resist proving them wrong...!
You know, I don't think it's a catch-22 if you jump into the water, insult everyone in earshot, and piss them off so that they all hate you. I think that's called painting yourself in a corner.
So who's gonna extend a helping hand and get the RIAA out of the corner? I guess it's time for another metaphor. The metaphor of the drowning man.
fifth sigma, inc.
would case-law still be deemed to have been made? The only reason for dropping cases that aren't going favourably could be to avoid case-law being made.
Also, if merely providing internet access facilities to others makes one guilty of the uses / activities done on that IP, then many IT firms have reasons to be seriously worried. Malware and Service Packs are downloaded over the same IP and the same protocols. It will be almost impossible to operate any net-enabled firm at all.
If you keep throwing chairs, one day you'll break windows....
Problem is that the RIAA doesn't have any incentive to stop the lawsuits, as long as they are able to intimidate the majority of their targets into settling. They just happened to pick a determined person (with resources) in this case.
They don't realize that the enemy is not file sharing or people getting their content for free. The real enemy is people buying only the tracks they want, and so lowering the average value of a purchase. The great thing about an LP/CD from a company point of view is that it was a bundle at a high price. This is a key difference between movie downloads and music downloads.
It is very hard to see how they get around this one. Prosecuting people will not take care of the move to singles. They probably cannot raise the price of the singles. It is hard to see how they ever reinstate the album purchase to where it was.
Yes, its tough. And they are not helping themselves by focussing on a completely different problem from the real one.
my immediate reaction after reading about tom (mediasentry) and these riaaa bastards from ass
"mwhaha... you suck, you so suck."
the wikipedia article i read (today) is fantastic. these mediasentry people 'tom' are a complete joke! what a bunch of sloppy bastards.
mwhahaha.
Surely this fits the bill of Vexatious litigation? The fact that they have done this kind of thing over and over. Should they really not be taken down over this? Are there no US regulatory legal authorities that look out for people's interests?
I think they DO believe that individual track sales hurts them, and it's public knowledge that they've been trying to convince Apple to let them sell popular singles for more than 99¢ for a while now, but Apple has not been budging because they think that would turn people off of iTunes altogether.
Sorry to say this, but your business model is now outmoded. This is why you are not selling CDs any more. In the same way that horse and cart sellers are few and far between, and email has come to dominate written communications no one is as interested in buying physical copies of their music. You need to diversify and evolve your business, not assault spotty teenagers.
Wait, this is Slashdot, how did you forget about the catholic schoolgirls? I thought they were like the #1 geek fantasy.
Alert: The parent is a cut and paste post. This usually indicates a troll.
Other instances of this post are here and here.
.., the image just needs a little red and black and some old celtic symbols to complete.
I think your record store, as hard as it may sound, is simply OBSOLETE. The people that flock to your store to buy christian family music are most certainly NOT the people pirating cd's, and if they do, they go to hell for it, so no worries.
The digital age is busy inventing new virtual worlds, mapping genomes, mapping memory, building bio robots. Everything that is in between that human wish for eternity and today will be obsolete, and the industry that makes most of it's profit from being "in the way" is the RIAA controlled record industry. The right to own or listen to music is not owned by a corporation, it is a human capacity, and it will evolve. I would seriously consider another way of making a living if I were you.
With great power comes great electricity bills.
I mean, we've ALL heard stories, haven't we.
A lot of sexual tension when finally released!
Woo hooo!
If only all cases could be settled this way!
Look for the new adverts ... "No win, no knee"!
LOVE IT!
Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
handmadehands.co.uk
I concur!
Damn I already moded this discussion, but I feel I need to post....
... Google if you dont know what I mean). Almost always the album is similar in quality to the single and often I hear songs I love that just would get airplay EVER.
I prefer to download whole albums, either legally or through dubious means (*cough* allofmp3 *cough*). I think it gives a better indication of the artist and the art they perform.
I hear a song I like via a friend or the radio (I'm on Oz so we have tripleJ/classicFm/Digg
I would happily pay for all my music album downloads if I could choose my bit rate, the files were DRM free and the price was reasonable lower than the cost of a CD (*cough* allofmp3 *cough*).
discussions 0n it was fun. If I'm say I'8 packing
INAL but really I regard this as a ruling against RIAA's bullying tactics.
It appears to me they are trying to draw out the costs of the case through two years of pre-trial discovery. The idea appears to be simply to bankrupt the defense and/or intimidate potential future defendants (i.e. the public) by showing that they don't have to go to trial in order to financially ruin their victim. Seems to occur commonly enough whenever one party in a case has especially deep pockets and the other doesn't.
What the judge is saying is, the RIAA can't just run up a huge legal bill and walk away. Score one for the little guy.
[Sir Garlon] is the marvellest knight that is now living, for he destroyeth many good knights, for he goeth invisible.
I haven't paid for recorded music in a long time, and will not do so again until things change for the better. ... when that happens I'll be happy to go back to the pre-net ways of using available cash to fill my closet or HD with music, and shopping in bricks-or-no-bricks stores for music.
I eagerly await the day when
1) DRM-free files or CDs cost less than DVD movies (around $5 US would be just fine for an album)
2) The mafiaa isn't insulting/threatening/suing us.
IANAL, but anytime a corporation sues an individual, and is wrong,
the corporation should pay double or triple the fees back to the individual.
With the Individual actually getting the money.
A woman stands alone against a team of lawyers.
Suffers two years of this legal mumbo-jumbo.
And then RIAA wants to just walk away from it?
No.
Make 'em pay!
Future. The [hand
You see, if lawyers starting realising that it is possible to get fees from RIAA lawsuits they are more likely to accept defending the normal people without asking for payment (what is the term for that?). Lawyers are like sharks and if they see that RIAA (that huge a$$ociation with $hitload$ of ca$h) starts bleeding some cash for lawyers they will be very attracted to defend this people.
Every new sued person is a potential new job for a lawyer.
Ubuntu is an African word meaning 'I can't configure Debian'
You can get it all, DRM-free, less than the cost of a CD, and legal.
The usual American solution is to cross-file, wherein defendant becomes cross-plantiff. Then plantiff might well withdraw their suit, but cross action proceeds. Most often, both are cleared in a settlement agreement.
Here, it appears the crossfile was not done, so the Judge has to unfortunately step in.
I have seen this at least once if not more already. Posted almost verbatim. Always by AC and it shows up in these RIAA related threads.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
...when it's not allowed?
Ok- internet piracy is to blame for all of your problems. So why don't we take a look at what we should blame for internet piracy, eh?
Personally (and shockingly), I blame the RIAA, and folks like Sony that are attempting to subvert and erode the rights of music customers, as well as the shift in technology allowing people to legally purchase much of the same music online.
Let's examine the options for a moment:
A.) I drive 20 minutes to the local record store, drop $15 for a CD containing 2 or 3 good songs, and quite possibly a variety of DRM measures, rootkits and other nonsense that can make listening to the aforementioned 2 or 3 good tracks much more difficult than it really should be, and of course, another 20 minutes to get home again.
B.) I preview all of the tracks online, and then download the 2 or 3 that I want for a dollar each. It takes far less time and costs much less than option A, although there is still a potential DRM issue.
C.) I find the full album on bitTorrent in a format that I know will play on every media device I own. It's not quite legal, but it is fast and costs me nothing.
I can't speak for everyone, but in my mind, option A is in a distant 3rd place.
That said, I don't remember the last time I bought a physical CD. On the other hand, I don't remember the last time I illegally downloaded a song or album I didn't have rights to, however it is the mindset that is important. If I decided I wanted a particular CD tomorrow, getting it from the old record store would easily be the last resort.
The "record store" as we know it is a dinosaur that is virtually doomed to extinction unless it can adapt to a changing market. Until the day when buying music the "right" way becomes nearly as simple, easy, and painless as doing it the "wrong" way, illegal downloads will continue. Running a business the same way it was done 20 years ago in a market changing as quickly as this one is, and whining about how no one buys CDs anymore just isn't going to cut it.
There's a different level of standards in a Civil suit.
I am not merely a "consumer" or a "taxpayer". I am a Citizen of the State of Texas
"They need to stop harassing people who can't hope to match their legal resources. This woman basically just kicked them in the nuts, hard. Good for her. Just like a good old fashioned kick in the nuts, you don't feel the 'real' pain immediately, for the benefit of those without nuts or experience in having them kicked."
Why am I picturing the RIAA lawyers all standing there with their hands over their nads while a diminutive lady dressed in black with asthma and a bouffant [sp?] eyeing them up?
"As God is my witness, I thought turkeys could fly." A. Carlson
It's funny, it seems the RIAA thought they would just steamroll their way over people using big legal teams and ominous threats. Now, they are meeting resistance and potentially losing battles which are gonna cost them credibility and double legal fees (theirs plus the defendants). I mean, is it me or are they obviously just shaking people down hoping they get scared and pay up? If I were one of the lucky ones to have been scared into paying up early on I would be thinking about going back for some payback (literally), if at all legally possible.
If she wins flat out, a flood of copy-cat defenses will appear, since many, many of the RIAA's victims are in the same situation: no evidence against them, no money for them, atrocities have NOT been committed, etc. As soon as RIAA is forced to fully face the music one time, everyone else will rush to play the same tune.
And that kills the RIAA's backup business plan - "if you can't hold the product hostage, hold the customer hostage".
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
IANAL, but I think 'pro bono' means the lawyer won't get paid at all. I think what's meant is 'on contingency', that is, the lawyer only gets paid if he/she wins.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
I have as strong a sense of propriety and fairness as most, so, like most, the fact that the RIAA has filed suits against people who have had misfortunes heaped upon them by life's circumstances has aroused in me a sense of moral scorn for the RIAA. But, enough with the ad hominem. It is gratuitous for every story to highlight the adverse circumstances of a defendant, as if the unfortunate circumstances of that defendant is the dispositive feature of the case. Not every headline needs to be of the form: RIAA sues divorced mother (cf. this article); RIAA sues stroke victim (cf. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=07/03/17/05 1234); RIAA sues illiterate mother of five (cf. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/21/20 45219); RIAA sues family of two dead men (cf. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/08/15/20 23250); RIAA sues woman with multiple sclerosis (cf. http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=06/12/07/23 51238); etc.
Before you point to the supposed "economic downturn", I'll note that the book store just across from my store is doing great business. Unlike CDs, it's harder to copy books over The Internet.
I get a lot of my books over the Internet these days, from Fictionwise and Baen Webscriptions. None of them are DRMed, they're more convenient to carry around and read on the go, I can fit a hundred paperbacks into a flash card the size of my thumbnail and read them on a PDA that fits in my pocket... and costs less than 100 paperbacks.
But it's not even the "Internet" that's killing your business.
The independant bookstore is dying, just like the independant record store is. If that book store across the road is doing great business, and it's not a chain store like Borders, then it's a miracle. And if it's a chain then it's doing great business selling CDs as well... and you don't need to look any further than the other side of the street to see where your sales are going. If they're not going to the chain store across the street, they're going to one within a few minutes driving.
Because Borders has pretty much every CD you do, and all the ones you refuse to carry and many of the "obscure, independent releases that no-one listens to, not even the people that buy them." And they're cheaper. And they've got a Starbucks. What on earth makes you think you can compete with that?
A case dismissed without prejudice can be brought again, once the plaintiff finds a new angle. The judge is saying the defendent has a right to closure, and owing the lack of evidence and shaky legal theory, she doesn't deserve to be forced to help pay for the RIAA's test of its tactics.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
The RIAA isn't losing a significant amount of money, even if the claimed infringements were real. They are demanding huge sums that would destroy all but the richest people. *Who* they attack is just as relevant as *how*.
Suppose a $billion company sues another $billion company over miniscule infractions. This is perhaps still wrong, but the difference is somewhat akin to two pro hockey teams constantly highsticking each other, and a pro hockey team using baseball bats on a first-grader's hockey team.
In one case, it's a somewhat distasteful display of normal business aggression. In the other case, it's a morally repugnant display of inhumanity. Business v. business does nothing but bleed the litigants of some cash. Individuals at the companies are emotionally detached from the battle, and they can go home at the end of the day.
But such large scale attacks on natural persons in difficult situations destroys lives.
This is relevant to justice.
Pavlov wouldn't be so famous if he'd used a can opener instead of a bell.
For as screwed up as our legal system sometimes appears to be, I find it wonderful to see examples where it may actually be working within the confines of justice and fairness.
I use irony whenever I can, but my shirts are still wrinkled...
I ask this question in all seriousness, and I hope it gets answered. What percentage of their cases that have gone to court has the RIAA actually won? I know they're getting settlements out the wazoo, but how many of the cases that go to court do they win? I keep hearing about cases that they dismiss with or without prejudice, but I haven't heard many in which they've actually won. I've been under the impression the number is fairly low, but it could just be those are the only ones that make the news.
I think at the moment they're facing many enemies, but overall their greatest is in fact their own incompetence and inability to smoothly transition in a changing market. Their own enemy is simple greed.
For years and even decades, music companies have managed to milk the talent of skilled performers while at the same time overpumping and burning out mediocre ones. However, those days are gone, and the market has changed. Gone are the days when you needed to buy three tapes if you wanted a proper-quality version for your car, home, and office (there was some loss when copying tapes). Gone are the days when customers could not easily replicate music. Gone are the days when they could milk customers for an entire disc/tape/record when only 1-3 songs were worth bothering with. Moreover, while their models have also greatly depending on screwing over good musicians with draconian contracts. Yes, they still have such contracts, and some fools fall into them, but at the same time more and more are realizing that they don't need to RIAA to further themselves, or that it would be a case of 2 steps forward, 3 steps back in many cases. Lastly, customers are starting to turn away from the pop-performer crud that's been pumped for the last 5-8 years, and going back to music that was based on... well... music (and not some guy dancing on stage in fancy MTV duds). I work in a school district, and I'm very very happy to notice that even the kids are starting to turn away from lip-syncing low-talent hacks and go back to the good stuff.
So they've lost their target market. They've lost their baseline products. Heck, they've even lost their longstanding model of suppliers. The biggest part is the greed of it all, as they still expect the same massively-inflated profits. Keep in mind too, that this is not revenues I'm speaking of, but profits. After all the expenses, it's still a massive money they come ahead with. Perhaps that money might be declining in the future, or they might have to spend some of it developing new infrastructures for a time, but it's still a shitload and they've no right to complain at all.
Your post advocates a
(X) technical ( ) legislative (X) market-based (X) vigilante
approach to fighting media piracy. Your idea will not work. Here is why it won't work.
(X) Sales statistics reflect far more than the effects of piracy
(X) Implementation would require expensive, industry-wide cooperation
(X) Lack of centrally controlling authority for record stores
(X) Business owners stand to profit by non-compliance
(X) "Open relays" in foreign markets
(X) Many businesses cannot afford to lose business or alienate potential employers
Specifically, your plan fails to account for
(X) Decreased music sales due to increase in bland, unimaginative content
(X) Consumers will blacklist stores that participate
(X) The internet is a *world-wide* network. You did know that, right?
(X) The "industry" does not care about you as much as you care about it
and the following philosophical objections may also apply:
(X) I need to show ID to buy a CD about as much as I do to buy batteries, thanks
(X) Ideas similar to yours are easy to come up with, yet none have ever
been shown practical
(X) Blacklists suck
(X) We should be able to talk about piracy without being punished
(X) Feel-good measures do nothing to solve the problem
(X) Piracy is largely due to the failure of "the industry" to adapt
(X) The people affected by the over-litigiousness and mob-style scare tactics of "the industry" *are* victims
Furthermore, this is what I think about you:
(X) Your sob story has nothing to do with the issue at hand
(X) You are a troll, and probably a shill
(X) They have *not* fought the war on drugs with "skill"
(X) Christian rock sucks
(X) It is properly spelled "l33t"
(X) Sorry dude, but I don't think it would work.
(X) This is a stupid idea, and you're a stupid person for suggesting it.
( ) Nice try, assh0le! I'm going to find out where you live and burn your
house down!
The cost for my band to record and duplicate our second CD was about $4.50 each or thereabouts. iTMS gives us $6.37 per full album sale. CDBaby gives us about $7 each.
Need Geek Rock? Try The Franchise!
Pirate1: "Dude, I'm going to put this CD on the Internet right away."
Pirate2: "Yeah, dude, that's really lete [sic], you'll get lots of respect."
Are you quite sure that's what they said? Are you telling me characters from Reefer Madness shop at your store?
I grabbed the little shit by his shirt. "So...you're going to copy this to your friends over The Internet, punk?" I asked him in my best Clint Eastwood/Dirty Harry voice.
Did you ever get in trouble for committing assault? Were they impressed with your Dirty Harry voice?
I am inspired by artists such as Metallica that have taken a stand against the powerful pirate lobby.
Could you post some information on the powerful pirate lobby, including how much money they've donated to each party?
Step into a huge movement. Don't Tread In Me.
This is what the industry does not want! Why? Digital is forever.
Vinyl wore out, warped in the hot car, suffered from freezing weather, and suffered much more from younger brother treating your record collection like a frisbee.
The industry sold you multiple copies of anything you really liked, followed by reel-to-reel versions, 8-track versions, cassette versions, and CD versions of the same d@mn music.
Then, when your CD's in your car were damaged, scratched, stolen, or otherwise rendered useless, they fought your ability to make legal backups so that they could continue selling you the same d@mn music over and over again.
Now with iPods and DRM'd digital downloads that only play on some or one portable player, they're still selling you the same d@mn music that you've purchased how many times before?
That's the problem with DRM-free digital music. Buy once and play everywhere forever.
The true crime in this case, btw, is not the judge finally saying you have to wave the white flag now, or go to court and die. The true crime is that it took two d@mn years to get to this point. It should have been tossed out fifteen minutes after it was filed in the first place! I predict option 3 -- a huge settlement offer to drop the case now rather than dismiss with prejudice, or go to court.
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Oh, come ON!!! Dude, you're going to wear out your CTRL and V keys at this rate.
Either one of two things is true about this "post that won't die":
1) It's the shiniest green astroturf you ever saw, or
2) Someone thinks they're being funny.
Either way, ENOUGH already!
"Oh boy! Are we going to try something dangerous?"
They have fought the War on Drugs with skill, so why not the War on Piracy?
Troll!!
When the kids went to bed, my wife asked me, "Will we be able to keep the house, David?"
I just shook my head, and tried to hold back the tears. "I don't know, Jenny. I don't know."
Double troll!!
I have a very close friend who is a divorce attorney. It is a well discussed subject that you alude to there in your post. Attorneys (at least divorce attorneys) are VERY aware of that strategy and will use it bankrupt the other person. It does happen and it is known among attorneys.
I, personally, used his services when my ex-wife first left me. She wound up moving to Finland when we got divorced (long story).
She declared bankruptcy about 14 months after leaving. She had been back to the USA for no less than 12 depositions during discovery. Almost every legal action was purposely delayed and every "grey" area was stretched as far as the judge would allow. Really, looking back, she never had a chance. My attorney was free (remember, he was a friend) and hers cost money.
It may be mean, but it worked and I got the exact result I wanted.
(And for those who judge, all I can say is "all is fair in love and war" and if you are ever in the same position, I suspect you too will look out for #1. Why? Because the alternative is even worse. In divorce, you don't just lose -- you can lose everything you have worked your whole life for.)
The Senators and Congresscritters the Hollywood content cartel bought and paid for in both political parties, presumably. In the form of law that will be even harder for a victim targeted by lawbot to defend against.
Tech Public Policy stuff
This is what the industry does not want! Why? Digital is forever.
Digital may be forever however that doesn't mean there are no chances to resell the same product. You just need to make it worth it to the consumer. Eg higher bitrates (although that hits a cap pretty fast) or possibly surround sound.
meh
RIAA Caught in Tough Legal Situation
Replace "Tough" with "Well-Deserved" and I'll buy it.
The higher the technology, the sharper that two-edged sword.
What the court awards and what the RIAA collects are two very different things.
All the judge can do in a civil case is say, "Defendant owes Plaintiff $x. Have a nice day." After that, it's up to Plaintiff to figure out how to collect.
My slightly (I am a Landlord, so I have some experience with judgments and collections) uneducated guess is that in the case of default judgments, their actual collections do not exceed their legal, court, and collection fees.
The money here is made on the settlements (a $3000 settlement just for sending a few First Class letters and operating a small call center. Score!), and the real money (they hope) is made when they discourage people from sharing files with each other.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
The RIAA wins a ton of default judgments (defendant doesn't show up), which they can technically put in the "Win column". However, I've never read about a case where they have prevailed if the defendant submits an actual defense.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock