Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Must Divulge Expenses-Per-Download
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The Court has ordered UMG Recordings, Warner Bros. Records, Interscope Records, Motown, and SONY BMG to disclose their expenses-per-download to the defendant's lawyers, in UMG v. Lindor, a case pending in Brooklyn. The Court held that the expense figures are relevant to the issue of whether the RIAA's attempt to recover damages of $750 or more per 99-cent song file, is an unconstitutional violation of due process."
I just don't get it. Damages of $750 dollars for downloading a song? Let's be reasonable. I mean, I hate Celine Dion as much as anyone but I don't think the RIAA should be forced to pay more than $500 for every time I download one of her MP3s.
RIAA:"It's 70 cents for the song and $749.30 in cost of PR for restoring faith of our customers/artists/record labels"
Judge:Are you sure?
RIAA: "Ok, it's really 70 cents for the song, $749 for lawyers and $.30 in PR"
Judge: Come on now?
RIAA: "Alright, it's $.03 for the song, $200 for lawyers and $549.97 for your reelection campaign and all the free downloads of "The Gap Band" you can handle? How's that sound judge? Judge? Judge? Is this thing on?"
This is one of the most honest and unbiased assessments of the whole copyright issue I have ever seen on Slashdot. shark72, you have obviously reached a higher echelon that is beyond the reach of this site's populace. Go! Leave us to our one-sided demise and forge new hopeful alliances to spread your even-handed message!
Sand's overrated... it's just tiny little rocks.