from http://techdirt.com/articles/20061110/005745.shtml

Court Will Examine The Constitutionality Of RIAA Fines
from the a-big-loss-for-the-RIAA dept

When the RIAA sues people for unauthorized uploading of songs, they usually put a price between $750-per-song to $30,000-per-song in losses. Many have argued that this seems rather excessive -- especially considering how much the songs are actually sold for. A year and a half ago, there was a scholarly paper that examined whether the RIAA's excessive loss claims were unconstitutionally excessive. With that in mind, it wasn't that surprising earlier this year to see one defendant in an RIAA suit question the constitutionality of the $750 number that was trotted out in her case. At the time, we stated that the reasoning used to back this up seemed much weaker than the reasoning in the law review article, but as lawyer Ray Beckerman (who is involved in the case) explained, the filing was limited in length and only needed to serve a specific purpose. It also looks like they were later able to submit either the law review article we mentioned, or other supporting documents. No matter what happened, the judge has now ruled that it is a perfectly legitimate question, and will be included as part of the case. The judge tossed out all of the RIAA's objections, noting that the defendant actually backed up their claim with case law and law review articles. The RIAA, on the other hand, could offer no similar case law to explain why the constitutionality of the fines couldn't be questioned. Of course, who knows how the case will turn out, but should the RIAA lose, it would be pretty damaging for them. They use the threat of the $750/song (or higher) fines as a way to bully people into just settling, rather than fighting -- even if they know they're innocent.

I imagine the riaa is going to drop this case like a hot rock now....but wouldn't it be nice if the case got to go forward? Ahhh, one can only dream on.....

Please be unconstitutional! Please be unconstitutional! I pray to God PLEASE make them rule it's unconstitutional.
Seriously though, I bet the RIAA will try to bribe the courts into ruling that the RIAA's sue-em-all extortion policy is in fact constitutional.

'bout time! Hats off to the brave folks in the military that put their lives on the line for our freedoms.. also hats off to the unwavering folks who stand up to the bully-tatics of greedy cartels, also risking their livelyhood (remember"the persuit of happiness..") and even their lives for their freedoms and rights. We honor them all.

:colorscoll: OOps, I meant

I posted this as a news submission earlier, but it didn't get posted, so here it is --also see the comments at the other link provided:

http://recordingindustryvspeople.blogspot.com/2006/11/judge-grants-marie-lindors-motion-to_09.html

"In UMG v. Lindor, Judge Trager has granted Ms. Lindor's motion to add a defense based on the unconstitutionality of the $750-per-song damages sought by plaintiffs. He rejected the RIAA's arguments that the defense was without merit, that the motion was untimely, that the amendment would prejudice the RIAA, or that Ms. Lindor was required to send a notice to the United States Department of Justice of her defense of unconstitutionality.

Judge Trager ruled:

[P]laintiffs can cite to no case foreclosing the applicability of the due process clause to the aggregation of minimum statutory damages proscribed under the Copyright Act. On the other hand, Lindor cites to case law and to law review articles suggesting that, in a proper case, a court may extend its current due process jurisprudence prohibiting grossly excessive punitive jury awards to prohibit the award of statutory damages mandated under the Copyright Act if they are grossly in excess of the actual damages suffered.....Furthermore, Lindor provides a sworn affidavit asserting that plaintiffs' actual damages are 70 cents per recording and that plaintiffs seek statutory damages under the Copyright Act that are 1,071 times the actual damages suffered. Aff. of Morlan Ty Rogers, ("Rogers Aff.", [pars.]5, 6. See also Aff. of Aram Sinnreich, ("Sinnreich Aff."), [par.] 2, 3 (attesting that popular music sound recording downloads and consumer license to use same are lawfully obtainable to the public at 99 cents per song, and of that 99 cents, roughly 70 cents per song is paid by the retailer to the record label). As FRCP Rule 12(b)(6) requires that this figure be taken as true for purposes of the motion, Lindor has alleged a factual basis supporting her affirmative defense."

.November 9, 2006, Order Granting Leave to Amend Answer to Include Unconstitutionality Defense*
Second Amended Answer, Filed November 9, 2006*

Pursuant to an earlier decision of Magistrate Judge Levy, plaintiffs are now required to produce "all relevant documents" to Ms. Lindor's attorney, and then to make a deposition witness available by telephone deposition, on the subject of the plaintiffs' wholesale sales price of downloads."

http://www.slyck.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=27802

($750/song or higher)

There goes my $400 Ipod for XMas

What's the deal with boycottriaa.com and boycott-riaa.com? Decide on one or the other please!

I prefer this site anyhow. I dislike the new page layout there. IMO you should just close that other site and keep it here in one place.

Agreed New site was horribly botched

You mean there are two lousy sites?

With Deadman.
New site needs *work* , no complaints but .

this site works better right now, just sayin schmoo. no backlash to the dog, I'm sure he's doin all he can.

re:
"I prefer boycott-riaa.com. I dislike the new page layout at boycottriaa.com.
IMO, you should just close that other site and keep it here in one place."

i concur; that's the way to simplify things
after all, how long has that other site been on the blink
since september, i declare

heh, i wonder if shmoo & leflaw would allow all us readers to take a vote on that issue
it'd really be interesting to see how it would turn out
do you think they've got the gumption to open the issue up for a poll
remains to be seen

i mean, i'm like DeadMan
i didn't like the layout of boycottriaa.com anyway
and having that additional site is unnecessary
let's all just take a deep breath and let it go
not much lost
this site right here is fine as is
with or without an edit button

let's have a poll

Polls are in the new site sucks

Cut the loses and move on

Folks, nobody actively maintains the old site (boycott-riaa) ...the main-page news items you are reading there are only automated mirrors of the front page news articles originally posted at DMusic. (Your comments and replies also get posted back over at DMusic when you make them from the old site.)

Folks, I appologize for the new site (boycottriaa.com) being on the fritz. I have done all I know how to do to at least keep it up to date with the "In The News" and other menu links while the comments section and other glitches (caused by spammers) have plagued it.

It's up to leflaw what to "do" about either site. They both belong to him.

I have tried to do my best working with broken tools and what very little time I have online anymore when I can get a moment or two away from my minimum wage day-jobs.

So sorry if it's not good enough for some of you. You want better? Start sticking enough money in my tip-jar so I can quit these stupid day-jobs which take up all my time and don't even pay hardly enough to cover my rent.

Somebody needs to dip into deep lawyer pockets and get somebody who knows what they're doing.

Is it implied that I don't know what I am doing?

Play nice.

I have needed to take a for a very long time. If somebody wants to volunteer to be that wad of I use to wipe myself with, they are certainly free to do so.

(I prefer to use "Troll" brand tissue paper folks!)

...and, Genetic's comment was a bit vague.

(Don't want to return flames to anyone unless I am sure.)

mike is a sincere fellow who has worked hard for as far back as I can gather
i was kinda wanting to spare him the extra grief while also making things simple for everyone, especially if most of us would feel we could easily live without that second site (boycottriaa.com) as i know DeadMan2003 and an unknown number of others probably could as well
that's why i suggested an opinion poll on the subject
as one way to verify if the new site is really needed
seeing as how we've got this workable mirror of DMusic going quite well here
i'd be interested in having the issue run by leflaw

regarding:
"...and, Genetic's comment was a bit vague."

i didn't perceive it as vague when he said:
Date: November 11, 2006 @ 9:59 PM
"You mean there are two lousy sites?"

disparaging troll talk

i offer a simplifying compromise in the sense that, as i said,
we've got this good workable mirror of DMusic going on here anyway
it should suffice

I'm to the point where it makes no difference to me either way. Keep the old site and kill the new (or vice-versa.)

Honestly, my feelings wouldn't be hurt.

I'm the guy who pushed for an "improved" anyways...

Maybe everyone is right, maybe I am just a poor workman trying to blame it all on "shoddy tools"

...perhaps I should stop trying to save the world, and start thinking about myself for a while.

it would likely make your life easier

also, just as significant
both the focus and the endeavor of the over-all mission might still have comparable thrust
even with just this established boycott site (boycott-riaa.com)

i recommend the one we've got right here
even without the edit feature if need be

we can manage okay without bells and whistles
envisioned by the other (boycottriaa.com) concept

notwithstanding
your notion of an "improved" site
was a noble idea
but sometimes simplicity serves best
especially in cases where being strapped for time and/or resources are compelling factors

What Nonsense

Hmmm let's see ....

The Trolls ( troll actually, 1 poster 2 id's )
want you to demoralize you, want you to give up.
The spammers felt the need to spam the site
into the ground ...

That should tell you something.

Dreddsnik,
still on call.

(Dreddsnik, still on call.)

Who?

I believe 1854 that Dreddsnik prides himself on being something of big cheese in these parts. LoL.

The next Osama Obama perhaps?

Having a conversation with onesself is
kinda .. schizophrenic

But , at any rate,
There, shmoo, is the proof of the need.
No one missed the troll.

At the other site, they were non-existent.

That alone made it worthwhile.

(Having a conversation with onesself is
kinda .. schizophrenic)


Dreddsnik of course should know being that he's the only one left who posts on these threads.

(At the other site, they were non-existent.)

As well as anybody who would give a damn. I believe before the other site went done, again, Boycottriaa.com were averaging about what? Two post per thread? And both were Dreddsnik!

LoL

Dreddsneak

Shmoo -- If the new site requires more time and frustration to be expended on site mechanics instead of content, then that's not an improvement.

Unless your a bondage freak Get rid of that creepy logo over there