UMG Calls Infringement Damages "Excessive"

I Don't Believe in Imaginary Property writes "Why would UMG, one of the four major RIAA members, consider an infringement award 'grossly excessive'? Naturally, because they were the ones ordered to pay it. While they had no trouble with Jammie Thomas being ordered to pay $222k, some 13,214 times the actual costs, they thought that being ordered to pay ten times the actual damages in Bridgeport v. Justin Combs was just too much. Then again, maybe that's why they didn't complain back when the increased statutory damages section was cut from the PRO-IP Act? Now if they could just cut the rest of the act."

Comments

They're All Thieves

[Nom du Keyboard]

They're all thieves, and I hope they eat each other to death.

Re:Bush Justices - New Law of the land

[IHC Navistar]

Comparing the Exxon Valdez case to the McDonalds case is a pretty bad comparison.

In the Exxon Valdez case, Exxon was liable for the pilot, who was piloting an oil tanker while drunk. Exxon did not allow the captain to pilot the ship while drunk (the pilot decided to anyways), but they were accountable for his actions, since he was an Exxon employee, on the clock, and engaging in a business operation at the time of the incident. In no way did Exxon permit a drunk captain to pilot the ship, but they were liable in that they are accountable for the actions of their employees while on official business.

McDonald's DID NOT scald someone- The lady SCALDED HERSELF. In the McDonald's case, it was the fault of the truly stupid lady who tried to drive while trying to drink a cup of hot coffee. She should have been doing NOTHING more than focusing on driving while the car was moving, and not drinking. This is the same as fat people who sue fast food businesses because they are fat, when it is the fault of the lard-ass shoving a Double Quarter-Pounder With Cheese and fries down his or her own throat (McDonald's isn't forcing them to eat junk- the idiots CHOOSE to by ordering it, paying for it, and eating it).

"The Roberts Supreme Court will do *anything* to get their corporate masters off the hook. One of the things they are trying to do is severely limit the damages a corporation can face when it royally fucks up. One way is to protect their corporate buddies is to limit punitive damages to less than 10x the statutory damages. They don't want a company loosing their shirt like McDonalds after scalding someone."

          Again, the lady SCALDED HERSELF. If McDonald's had thrown hot coffe onto her, the you could correctly say "McDonald's scalded her". But, they didn't: She scalded herself by accidentally spilling coffee into her lap when she tried to drink a CUP OF *HOT* COFFEE WHILE TRYING TO DRIVE AT THE SAME TIME. Furthermore, there was a public outrage of the outcome of the first trial in the lady's favor, as the public saw this as a clear-cut case of lawsuit abuse. He multi-million dollar "pain and suffering" award was almost eliminated on appeal, as the judge correctly saw the incident was definitely her fault. This case is infamous because virtually everybody, except for those who abuse lawsuits, holds this case as a prime example of lawsuit abuse and rewarding stupidity on behalf of the "victim".

Getting companies off the hook in these types of cases is become an inversely abusive practice- Companies that SHOULD be held liable aren't (Exxon), and companies that SHOULD NOT be held liable are (McDonald's).

The case law should be: If *YOU* do something stupid, it's *YOUR* fault, (i.e., Exxon, stupid lady with coffee) regardless if you were the one to suffer for the action(s).