RIAA wins case in Minnesota?

Originally Posted by Monkey King

A defense attorney who deserves his law degree would have shot the RIAA out of the water by forcing them to provide proof of damages. The music industry hasn't actually been able to say how much damage has been done by file-sharing, and they go out of their way to white-wash that fact. No damages, no case.

As I understand it, the judge didn't allow testimony regarding how much the record labels were actually harmed. That's why it is the big issue on appeal. I don't know if they are even appealing the verdict (or putting much emphasis on that).

It really is bizarre. There aren't many things that have a calculative value that we don't force juries to calculate.

The answer in your last post, why are they bothering, is because they can get $10k a song without proving they had $10k in damages. Chalk that one up to your Congressman.

But would you say the system is broken if the actual damages were $10k? What if she did deliver the song to 7,000 people. Would you have a problem with that damage then?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

The funny thing about the two cases you presented the former actually gave music with a measurable harm, while we have no idea if the latter shared anything at all.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

The problem with the argument that it isn't stealing is that you don't get to have other things in life that you can't get without paying for them. You don't get to get a Ferrari unless you can pay for it or steal one off the street. You don't get to have a television unless you can pay for it or steal one off the street.

Now we're saying, "Well, you can have music without paying for it, as long as you just download it."

It might provide no actual harm if someone who wouldn't have otherwise purchased it downloads it, but how can you tell the difference between someone who would have paid for it and someone who wouldn't have? How do you say, "No, no, I think this guy would have paid for it, so let's prosecute him, but not this guy."

You can't separate the two classes, which is why the act is what is punishable, not the intent.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

They are losing their copyrights.

There are damages in this world other than monetary damages, you know.

If I hit you over the head with a stick, you didn't lose any money, so does that mean you aren't harmed at all?

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Well, I am too. But you're trying to excuse yourself by some bullshit reasoning that you aren't harming anyone. You are. The truth is you don't care that you are because you find the RIAA reprehensible.

How ya doing, buddy?

Uh.

No.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

As I understand it from what I heard on NPR, Radiohead just didn't re-up their contract when it expired. I think they were professional about it, not doing what Slash said in a literal sense.

At any rate, the original question was retarded.

FELIPE NO