RIAA wins case in Minnesota?

I remember going over some logic and there was a specific fallacy concerning this situation (that the existence of the Internet is the sole reason for the drop in sales). I think a lawyer would be wise to use that fallacy, and (as we all have said) challenge them to see whether the defendant really cost the organization THAT amount of money.

Let's do some simple math. Let's pretend it costs 2 dollars per song on the album. Now, she had to pay a total fine of 9,250 per song for the full amount of monetary reimbursement required for sharing that song that the industry lost. Well, that means that she had to share it with 4,625 individuals, correct? That's kinda a bit high, no? And that has to go for all 24 files. Unlikely? Definitely.

The industry would need to prove that she actually shared the files with enough people to cost that much money. That doesn't mean that she should get some sort of pro-rated rate, but certainly it should not equal out to a quarter of a million.

As for the industry's rep, well, right now it won't hurt them. There are a lot of older customers who will say, "She got what she deserved" without thinking more about it. However, twenty, or thirty years from now, this generation, and the next generation will remember what they did, and simply not buy any music any more. And they definitely won't be able to pay the amount required in court cases. I'm not saying that no one will buy music from the industry, but the cash flow will definitely continue to drop, and not because of people sharing files, but rather their dislike of the industry itself.

Most amazing jew boots