8 ms·

What happens to the person at the end of this? Assuming the individual isn't from a wealthy family, that is not a debt that they will be able to pay off over an

by mdkess 14y ago

What happens to the person at the end of this? Assuming the individual isn't from a wealthy family, that is not a debt that they will be able to pay off over any timeframe. Since this is a fine, I imagine that they will be unable to declare bankruptcy, while assuming some wages are withheld, they also won't be able to pay rent.

patdennis 14y ago
Leins against real property, wage garnishments, etc.
tzs 14y ago
Most likely what will happen is what usually happens when the RIAA wins a big judgement: they will offer to settle for an amount that is approximately $1 to $2 per song shared. Note that I said per song shared, which will be more than the 24 songs that were specifically in the lawsuit. Generally in these cases the person is sharing thousands of songs. The RIAA only names a dozen or so in their suits because there is no point in suing over all of them. They have to prove proper copyright registration for each song and that they are authorized by the copyright owner to sue, so suing over all of them would require a ton of evidence. With 24 songs, if they win and if they get the MINIMUM POSSIBLE statutory damages (which only happens if the court finds that the infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe they were infringing), that works out to about $5k. If the court finds that the infringer knew or had reason to believe that they were infringing, the minimum statutory damages on 24 songs would be $18k. So, here's the situation from the point of view of someone that the RIAA catches distributing a few thousand songs: the RIAA will offer to settle for somewhere around maybe $3-5k. That will work out to about $1-2/song. Considering that it is typically $1/song to buy a copy of the song for personal use, being asked to pay $1 or $2 for a copy that you were sharing online is quite reasonable. If you decide that you are going to make them go to court, and they sue over just a handful of the songs, and if you actually did share the songs and so are guilty and they can prove it, then you are GUARANTEED to have damages of more than what you could have settled for. It doesn't take a game theorist to figure out that settling is a strictly dominant strategy here. Note that there is no question of innocence or mistake. Tenenbaum basically admits he did it, that he knew it was illegal, and that he intends to keep doing it. The other defendant who was taking their case to trial (three times now, I believe), Jamie Thomas-Rasset, also was clearly guilty, although she still hasn't admitted it. She did perjure herself, got caught tampering with evidence, and tried to blame her children and boyfriend for her actions.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  uhh, there's no reason for them to settle after the judgment. They've already won everything they could possibly hope for, and the appeal too.
  - mirkules 14y ago
    I was under the impression that settling after the judgment makes sense when the plaintiff knows for a fact that the defendant cannot possibly pay off his debt in his lifetime. I could be wrong, but I believe this is done because a) they want to extract the biggest amount possible in the shortest amount of time and b) because it sets a precedent for future cases
    - tedunangst 14y ago
      Settlements never set precedent. If the judgment is bigger (which would be just about always), they're already extracting the biggest amount. "We'll take what you have now, plus what you get later" is more than "We'll settle for what you have now." Anyway, I don't think the RIAA's litigation strategy has ever been about maximizing profits.
- btilly 14y ago
  You are assuming that they can, in fact, prove that you did it. The RIAA has been sufficiently sloppy that they have pursued these cases in many situations where the facts were against them. In those it does not always make sense to settle. And, even if the facts are against you, if you can prove that the RIAA screwed up in how they collected that information on you, they might not be allowed to actually present that evidence. The odds of this succeeding are low, but if even one person succeeds in that, the precedent will be good for everyone going forward. (Of course if you fail, you pay full costs.) Admittedly it takes an unusual kind of person to prefer one of the latter two courses. But if they succeed, it could be very good for everyone else. Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and I personally do not care much either way because I have never shared or downloaded copyrighted content in any public forum.
tedunangst 14y ago
If they withhold some of your wages, they don't withhold all of them. You can still pay rent and buy food.
driverdan 14y ago
AFAIK garnishing wages is generally done as a percentage or fixed amount based on income. It will not prevent him from paying rent.

by mdkess 14y ago

patdennis 14y ago

Leins against real property, wage garnishments, etc.

tzs 14y ago

Most likely what will happen is what usually happens when the RIAA wins a big judgement: they will offer to settle for an amount that is approximately $1 to $2 per song shared. Note that I said per song shared, which will be more than the 24 songs that were specifically in the lawsuit. Generally in these cases the person is sharing thousands of songs. The RIAA only names a dozen or so in their suits because there is no point in suing over all of them. They have to prove proper copyright registration for each song and that they are authorized by the copyright owner to sue, so suing over all of them would require a ton of evidence. With 24 songs, if they win and if they get the MINIMUM POSSIBLE statutory damages (which only happens if the court finds that the infringer was not aware and had no reason to believe they were infringing), that works out to about $5k. If the court finds that the infringer knew or had reason to believe that they were infringing, the minimum statutory damages on 24 songs would be $18k. So, here's the situation from the point of view of someone that the RIAA catches distributing a few thousand songs: the RIAA will offer to settle for somewhere around maybe $3-5k. That will work out to about $1-2/song. Considering that it is typically $1/song to buy a copy of the song for personal use, being asked to pay $1 or $2 for a copy that you were sharing online is quite reasonable. If you decide that you are going to make them go to court, and they sue over just a handful of the songs, and if you actually did share the songs and so are guilty and they can prove it, then you are GUARANTEED to have damages of more than what you could have settled for. It doesn't take a game theorist to figure out that settling is a strictly dominant strategy here. Note that there is no question of innocence or mistake. Tenenbaum basically admits he did it, that he knew it was illegal, and that he intends to keep doing it. The other defendant who was taking their case to trial (three times now, I believe), Jamie Thomas-Rasset, also was clearly guilty, although she still hasn't admitted it. She did perjure herself, got caught tampering with evidence, and tried to blame her children and boyfriend for her actions.

tedunangst 14y ago
uhh, there's no reason for them to settle after the judgment. They've already won everything they could possibly hope for, and the appeal too.
- mirkules 14y ago
  I was under the impression that settling after the judgment makes sense when the plaintiff knows for a fact that the defendant cannot possibly pay off his debt in his lifetime. I could be wrong, but I believe this is done because a) they want to extract the biggest amount possible in the shortest amount of time and b) because it sets a precedent for future cases
  - tedunangst 14y ago
    Settlements never set precedent. If the judgment is bigger (which would be just about always), they're already extracting the biggest amount. "We'll take what you have now, plus what you get later" is more than "We'll settle for what you have now." Anyway, I don't think the RIAA's litigation strategy has ever been about maximizing profits.
btilly 14y ago
You are assuming that they can, in fact, prove that you did it. The RIAA has been sufficiently sloppy that they have pursued these cases in many situations where the facts were against them. In those it does not always make sense to settle. And, even if the facts are against you, if you can prove that the RIAA screwed up in how they collected that information on you, they might not be allowed to actually present that evidence. The odds of this succeeding are low, but if even one person succeeds in that, the precedent will be good for everyone going forward. (Of course if you fail, you pay full costs.) Admittedly it takes an unusual kind of person to prefer one of the latter two courses. But if they succeed, it could be very good for everyone else. Disclaimer, I am not a lawyer, this is not legal advice, and I personally do not care much either way because I have never shared or downloaded copyrighted content in any public forum.

tedunangst 14y ago

If they withhold some of your wages, they don't withhold all of them. You can still pay rent and buy food.

driverdan 14y ago

AFAIK garnishing wages is generally done as a percentage or fixed amount based on income. It will not prevent him from paying rent.