|
Judge demands evidence of actual music industry damages in LimeWire case
|
|
The following comments relate to this news article:
article published on 20 December, 2010
With the RIAA asking for $1 billion in copyright infringement damages from Lime Group LLC, providers of the LimeWire gnutella P2P client, a federal judge has ordered both parties to produce detailed analysis on the financial impact of songs shared using the LimeWire P2P client.
In October the RIAA was granted a permanent injunction against LimeWire, requiring Lime Group to stop distributing ... [ read the full article ]
Please read the original article before posting your comments.
|
|
axlman
Member
|
20. December 2010 @ 11:38 |
Link to this message
|
RIAA lawyers had argued that proving actual damages would be too much of a burden for the labels, but the judge apparently felt the defendants' right to mount a defense trumped the labels' convenience.
I love that part! It goes to show that the RIAA can claim they loss so much money but they know damn well that they can not back it up!
It's also funny how they can jump on people and sue them, etc. but when a judge wants documents and proof of actual losses, they don't want to do the work!
Oh and I love the part of: "proving actual damages would be too much of a burden for the labels"
Hmmm... Funny how they (The RIAA) don't think about how much of a burden it is/was to all the people they sued and wanted a minimal of what was it? $25,000 for even one song?
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
|
dEwMe
Senior Member
|
20. December 2010 @ 12:37 |
Link to this message
|
|
What a joke! Glad this judge has a clue though! Far as I'm concerned you shouldn't get a dime you can't prove you lost...EVER!
Just my $0.02,
dEwMe
|
Junior Member
|
20. December 2010 @ 13:35 |
Link to this message
|
|
|
|
Tristan_2
Member
|
20. December 2010 @ 13:38 |
Link to this message
|
Soooooooooooooooooo The Riaa doesn't want to provide any "damages" do they! Its all their, Black and White, Clear as Crystal! They provide phony damages,force judges to either side with them or drops the case cuz they know they are trying to be Dictators! Yes I said Dictators cuz they are at this point.
|
|
xaznboitx
Senior Member
|
20. December 2010 @ 14:51 |
Link to this message
|
|
they should sue who sharing not limewire
|
AfterDawn Addict
|
20. December 2010 @ 15:34 |
Link to this message
|
Quote:
they should sue who sharing not limewire
Thats a brilliant idea! its a shame no one else thought of that.
|
|
axlman
Member
|
20. December 2010 @ 17:14 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
they should sue who sharing not limewire
They should sue who shares the files?
They should not sue period!
Who's side are you on?
This message has been edited since posting. Last time this message was edited on 20. December 2010 @ 17:15
|
Senior Member
|
20. December 2010 @ 18:58 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by axlman:
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
they should sue who sharing not limewire
They should sue who shares the files?
They should not sue period!
Who's side are you on?
by the law its piracy.there is only one side.if we pirate material,we know the risks and penalties,and so should not be surprised when the axe falls.it seems some on this site regard pirates as heroes.get a grip.
|
Senior Member
|
20. December 2010 @ 19:43 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by axlman:
RIAA lawyers had argued that proving actual damages would be too much of a burden for the labels, but the judge apparently felt the defendants' right to mount a defense trumped the labels' convenience.
I love that part! It goes to show that the RIAA can claim they loss so much money but they know damn well that they can not back it up!
It's also funny how they can jump on people and sue them, etc. but when a judge wants documents and proof of actual losses, they don't want to do the work!
Oh and I love the part of: "proving actual damages would be too much of a burden for the labels"
Hmmm... Funny how they (The RIAA) don't think about how much of a burden it is/was to all the people they sued and wanted a minimal of what was it? $25,000 for even one song?
I know right. Heaven forbid they have to give detailed proof on the actual impact to the recording industry and artists. I think the RIAA spends more money on trying to sue people than putting it into creating quality music/artists and delivering it a reasonable price. Studies and surveys have shown that many people who download illegal would have never spent the money in the first place on the material or might be more inclined to buy it if it was delivered at a resonable price without the heavy restrictions placed by the RIAA and the content deliverers like iTunes and others. I guess that is why artists like Trent Reznor have moved to giving their music away for free.
Maybe if they wouldn't sign every half assed person that calls themself a musician or singer because they can get someone else to write a song for them so they can sing it through a voice filter then maybe there would be more quality music out there.
|
Member
|
23. December 2010 @ 01:15 |
Link to this message
|
Originally posted by aldan:
Originally posted by axlman:
Originally posted by xaznboitx:
they should sue who sharing not limewire
They should sue who shares the files?
They should not sue period!
Who's side are you on?
by the law its piracy.there is only one side.if we pirate material,we know the risks and penalties,and so should not be surprised when the axe falls.it seems some on this site regard pirates as heroes.get a grip.
I agree there. We take a risk everytime we do download a song or anything else. The law is what it is. BUT and this is a BIG BUT. What does the law actually say. That is the true question.
|
|
Advertisement
|
|
|
|
xtago
Senior Member
|
27. December 2010 @ 09:37 |
Link to this message
|
The judge should have said if it's too much of a burned then why are you suing this company and then say maybe this case should be thrown out or just throw it out anyway because it's too much of a burned for the people who started the case.
The RIAA just don't want to do the work because you have to work out the cost of a song they would sell for real then work out the amount of times it was shared and then depecate that amount as the song will have a lower valve over the years as fans move on etc.
You'll find very few songs are worth much more than a $100,000 dollars really and that should show up.
The RIAA will pick every poplar song they can to try and boost it up to 1 billion but I don't think it'd even get to that.
|
