Slashdot Mirror
RIAA Confusion In Tenenbaum & Thomas Cases?
NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "There seems to be a bit of confusion in RIAA-land these days, caused by the only 2 cases that ever went to trial, Capitol Records v. Thomas-Rasset in Minnesota, and SONY BMG Music Entertainment v. Tenenbaum, in Boston. In both cases, the RIAA has recently asked for extensions of time. In Thomas-Rasset, they've asked for more time to make up their mind as to whether to accept the reduced verdict of $54,000 the judge has offered them, and in Tenenbaum they've twice asked for more time to prepare their papers opposing Tenenbaum's motion for remittitur. What is more, it has been reported that after the reduction of the verdict, the RIAA offered to settle with Ms. Thomas-Rasset for $25,000, but she turned them down."
I find the idea that I have somehow stolen £50 000 from someone preposterous, since I didn't take anything from them. I find the argument that I should have paid preposterous, since I don't have any money to pay them with. And I find the idea that I should do without if I can't pay preposterous, since I'm not a socially-right-wing nutjob.
Here's a radical idea: commit a fraction of the time you spend watching movies towards holding a job that could pay for your entertainment habits. You claim "I live in North London, so after rent and bills we have pretty much nothing." Bullshit. Your financial status is not North London's doing; it's yours. You chose to spend thousands of hours watching movies. You chose to spend thousands of hours not working. You chose to be in a position where you've "never have had £30 000".
Do you find it preposterous to take responsibility for your own choices?
Did it occur to you that the OP might not able to find a job in this dismal economy?
That only works for people who are actively looking for jobs. When someone is spending thousands of hours watching movies, it's not the economy's fault they haven't found a job.
That's not antipathy, that's reality.