3 ms·
I can't really see how this is even remotely proportionate, by any stretch of the imagination. What were these 24 tracks? A bunch of obscure Swedish Death Metal
by dflock 17y ago
I can't really see how this is even remotely proportionate, by any stretch of the imagination. What were these 24 tracks? A bunch of obscure Swedish Death Metal by all accounts. Is it likely that collecting these damages would make more profit than the sales of the tracks ever would? Maybe.
But, as she pointed out, she hasn't got $2m anyway, so they can't collect - it seems likely that the RIAA will just use the damages as a sledgehammer to bludgeon her into settling 'out of court' and out of the glare of publicity.
It makes me wonder what the jurors were thinking - awarding life destroying damages against a fellow citizen who is, presumably, an ordinary person, just like them. I don't think that I could do that, personally.
- fatdog789 17y agoPunitive damages are not meant to be proportionate. They are meant to be penal, and to "send a message" to other potential tortfeasors. (Civil trial for damages = tort). However, SCOTUS has ruled very recently that punitive damages must be proportional to the income and assets of the defendant, for example, $1M is nothing to Bill Gates but is beyond devastating to the average man.
- greendestiny 17y agoI'm not sure I've seen the justice in using people as examples. The compliance of others isn't their problem. Awards being relative to income make sense for fines, and I guess thats what these punitive damages are. This behavior of record companies makes it hard for geeks like me who don't support the abolishment of copyright. I think the worst that should happen in cases of copyright infringement of music is a several hundred dollar fine total, not per song.