Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Awarded $675,000 In Tenenbaum Trial
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The jury awarded the record company plaintiffs $675,000 in the Boston trial defended by Prof. Charles Nesson, SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum. I was not surprised, since exactly none of the central issues ever even came up in this trial. The judge had instructed the jurors that Mr. Tenenbaum was liable, and that their only task was to come up with a verdict that was more than $22,500 and less than $4.5 million. According to the judge, her reason for doing so was that, when on the stand, the defendant was asked if he admitted liability, and he said 'yes.' The lawyers among you will know that that was a totally improper question, and that the Court should not have even allowed it, much less based her holding upon the answer to it."
99.9% of people would rather go bankrupt than die waiting for surgery.
If you were trying to convince me that national health care is better, it really didn't work.
Just saying...
Peter predicted that you would "deliberately forget" creation 2000 years ago...
You do NOT get fined for being overweight.
Really now? It's already been suggested here in the states. Something similar is already being done in Japan. I'm supposed to believe that the fans of the big government nanny state are going to stop sin taxes at alcohol and tobacco and not advance them any further? Sorry, but I'm sick of the Government trying to protect me from myself.
"I'm not going to let the government decide my health care! Instead, I'm going to praise the land of the free because my health insurer chooses to deny me cancer coverage because I forgot to mention I had appendicitis 20 years ago."
Stop putting words in my mouth. I never praised the current system. I only said that it's preferable to a Government run one. There's a lot of things we could fix (tort reform, better preventative care, better regulation of the insurance industry, etc) that don't involve handing the whole system over to Washington.
In Australia I paid 1% of my income as a tax, or 1.5% when my income hit 45,000 a year. Alternatively, I could opt in for private coverage, and pay as much or as little as I liked, and not have that tax.
Could you opt out of coverage entirely? If not then the Government has taken away your freedom of choice at gunpoint.
I'm sorry but there isn't any argument you can make that's going to convince me that we need a Government-run health care system. I don't like Government. Government exists for one reason: To deprive individuals of the freedom of choice. When they are depriving you of the free choice to murder your neighbor that's a good thing. When they deprive you of the free choice to spend the fruits of your own labor as you see fit then that's a bad thing.
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
I have to point out that to The Rest Of The World (i.e. the vast majority of people on the planet) the word "Freedom" does not mean what Americans say it means. Frankly, over the last 50 years we've seen American "freedom" in action in Vietnam, Somalia, Central America, Waco, Utah, Iraq etc., and we don't want it thank you.
Your argument rests on the fact that the NHS won't pay for super expensive treatments (rationing as you put it) and your solution is that everyone pays for ALL their treatments.
The NHS would be doing great if they just ignored the patents on US made drugs and fabricated them locally. Paying drug companies 21,000 USD per injection is stupid and I don't care how research costs factor into it.
There wouldn't be any rationing if it weren't for your damn country overcharging us.